Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[nicholas.slaydon]

RTL poll in Germany on "should Ukraine give up territory for peace?" has Yes/No at 47/41

I assume they'd also be in favour of giving East Germany back too?

Crimea has been occupied for 8 years, I don't think Ukraine is getting it back.

"Alsace-Lorraine has been occupied for 43 years there is no way France is ever getting it back"- Central Powers appeaser in 1914.

So basically Ukraine isn't getting it back without a world war? As bad as WW1 was, at least it didn't have nukes.

Not a world war, just a war, and thankfully Putin has provided Ukraine with that war. However, Ukraine can't win this war on their own, and need our backing to be able to secure their land that we claim we support going back to Ukraine. It's on the Western Alliance leaders to give Ukraine the tools necessary to get the job done. The leaders of the Western Alliance didn't appease the Germans in 1918, and we shouldn't appease the Russians now, but should fully support Ukrainian sovereignty over Ukrainian soil.

[Virginiá]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Imo, "lose enough Russophone lands to make Ukraine's center of gravity be further away from Russia, but not enough of it to actually increase the power of your hand that much", looks like the worst of both worlds for Russia from a soft power point of view.

I don't think most Russians, especially the older ones, and certainly not Putin believe in soft power. Why does Medvedev always threaten with nukes no matter the topic at hand is?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Imo, "lose enough Russophone lands to make Ukraine's center of gravity be further away from Russia, but not enough of it to actually increase the power of your hand that much", looks like the worst of both worlds for Russia from a soft power point of view.

I don't think most Russians, especially the older ones, and certainly not Putin believe in soft power. Why does Medvedev always threaten with nukes no matter the topic at hand is?

I was not commenting on what is and isn't likely as a strategy coming from the Russians. I was talking about a potential end result of the current Russian approach when likely confronted with reality. Even if the two separate republics are accepted by Ukraine, well...it's not good for Russia in the long run.

[jaichind]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

[Lord Halifax]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

That's always a risk when dealing with countries with a significant corruption problem, hopefully those traitors will be executed asap.

EDIT: Assuming it actually happened.

[jaichind]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

That's always a risk when dealing with countries with a significant corruption problem, hopefully those traitors will be executed asap.

How do we not know it is not just the Ukrainians but not



With 10% for the Big Guy.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://exxpress.at/macrons-super-waffen-landen-bei-putin-nicht-bei-selenskyj/

Pro-OVP Austrian magazine reports that Ukrainian officers sold two French Caesar Howitzers  (they cost $3.5 million) to the Russians for 118k EUR each.

That's always a risk when dealing with countries with a significant corruption problem, hopefully those traitors will be executed asap.

How do we not know it is not just the Ukrainians but not



With 10% for the Big Guy.

We don’t know because there is zero visual evidence Russia has CAESAR howitzers. The report claims they were sold rather than captured. This would be pretty extraordinary even if we knew that Russia had 2 of just 12-18 howitzers to begin with, but the report simply assumes they do based off the Telegram claim. The most likely scenario is that they neither captured nor bought these weapons - otherwise, there’d almost certainly be footage.

This reminds of the RuMOD HIMARS destruction claim posted here recently. The footage they released showed buildings that at best might have contained HIMARS being missed by an attack.

This is one of the biggest wars of the 21st century, and we’re talking about the destruction, capture or sale(!) of systems which exist in the single and low double digits. They may be priority targets in certain regions, but most Russian forces will simply not engage with them. “Pics or it probably didn’t happen” isn’t unreasonable given the track records of most social media OSINT accounts and RuMOD.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Speaking of visual evidence, Ukrainian troops seem to have gone beyond the simple flag-planting mission/leaving Snake Island as no man’s land and are actively occupying it, for now. This seems dangerous, but perhaps Russia is weaker in the Black Sea than we thought.

If Ukraine intends to use it as a proper garrison, they could give their anti-ship missiles/surveillance network/anti-aircraft umbrella a bit more range without directly risking their Navy vessels.

https://mobile.twitter.com/armyinformcomua/status/1544984334557396992

Edit: This contributes to the impression that they have localised naval superiority near their western coastline, especially between the mainland and the island. They may be able to send more maritime traffic to and from Romania in due course, if they are willing and able to pay high insurance for ships making those journeys - but that still seems unlikely to happen at scale, for now.

[jaichind]

Speaking of visual evidence, Ukrainian troops seem to have gone beyond the simple flag-planting mission/leaving Snake Island as no man’s land and are actively occupying it, for now. This seems dangerous, but perhaps Russia is weaker in the Black Sea than we thought.

If Ukraine intends to use it as a proper garrison, they could give their anti-ship missiles/surveillance network/anti-aircraft umbrella a bit more range without directly risking their Navy vessels.

https://mobile.twitter.com/armyinformcomua/status/1544984334557396992

https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-defence-ministry-says-warplane-hit-ukrainian-troops-snake-island-2022-07-07/

"Russia says missile strike hit and killed Ukrainian troops on Snake Island"

The Russians claimed to have killed those Ukraine troops.  So this is claim vs claim

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Speaking of visual evidence, Ukrainian troops seem to have gone beyond the simple flag-planting mission/leaving Snake Island as no man’s land and are actively occupying it, for now. This seems dangerous, but perhaps Russia is weaker in the Black Sea than we thought.

If Ukraine intends to use it as a proper garrison, they could give their anti-ship missiles/surveillance network/anti-aircraft umbrella a bit more range without directly risking their Navy vessels.

https://mobile.twitter.com/armyinformcomua/status/1544984334557396992

https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-defence-ministry-says-warplane-hit-ukrainian-troops-snake-island-2022-07-07/

"Russia says missile strike hit and killed Ukrainian troops on Snake Island"

The Russians claimed to have killed those Ukraine troops.  So this is claim vs claim

That would be much less surprising than the CAESAR claims, but only one side has released footage (so far). If the missile strike was successful/hit ammo, buildings or equipment, this could well show up on satellite imagery in the days to come.

If Ukraine tries to keep a permanent garrison on the island and puts high-value equipment there, it will become a tempting target for missiles which should have the range to reach it from Sevastopol. Unlike the Russian garrison since the sinking of the Moskva, any Ukrainian garrison probably has closer long-range air defences than S-400s all the way back in Crimea (they have S-300s stationed near Odessa), but this is unlikely to be enough to prevent all attacks.

[bilaps]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

[rc18]

If Russia had captured / bought any Caesars then images of them would have been uploaded to Telegram almost instantly for the propaganda value. That we haven't seen any is as good as proof it didn't happen.

As with the video claiming to be a strike against HIMARS that didn't contain any HIMARS. They're just throwing around sh**t hoping it sticks to convince their own people and Western useful idiots that Western weapons deliveries aren't working. That's the way you can tell Western weapons deliveries are hurting them and they want them to stop...

[bilaps]

If Russia had captured or bought any Caesars then images of them would have been uploaded to Telegram almost instantly for the propaganda value. That we haven't seen any is as good as proof it didn't happen.

As with the video claiming to be a strike against HIMARS that didn't contain any HIMARS. They're just throwing around sh**t hoping it sticks to convince their own people and Western useful idiots that Western weapons deliveries aren't working. That's the way you can tell Western weapons deliveries are hurting them and they want them to stop...

I agree with this. Russian MOD is terrible source for claims about destroyed equipment. They are better about settlements which are taken.

I can't see the big difference that 4 HIMARS will do, though.

[CumbrianLefty]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

They are taking back small areas of territory around Kherson even as you typed this.

[bilaps]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

They are taking back small areas of territory around Kherson even as you typed this.

Another twitter offensive I suppose. In which they took for now maybe 3 unimportant villages. And even that's the question. In the same amount of time they lost two cities in SD and Lisichansk. Only villages around Lysychansk like Belogorovka are probably bigger advancement than all of that Kherson offensive. But if you wish to beleive in that, sure.

[GoTfan]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

They are taking back small areas of territory around Kherson even as you typed this.

Another twitter offensive I suppose. In which they took for now maybe 3 unimportant villages. And even that's the question. In the same amount of time they lost two cities in SD and Lisichansk. Only villages around Lysychansk like Belogorovka are probably bigger advancement than all of that Kherson offensive. But if you wish to beleive in that, sure.

Why are you simping so much for a dictatorship?

[jaichind]

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/communist-party-of-ukraine-banned-and-all-its-assets-seized-by-the-state

"Communist Party of Ukraine banned and all its assets seized by the state"

[bilaps]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

They are taking back small areas of territory around Kherson even as you typed this.

Another twitter offensive I suppose. In which they took for now maybe 3 unimportant villages. And even that's the question. In the same amount of time they lost two cities in SD and Lisichansk. Only villages around Lysychansk like Belogorovka are probably bigger advancement than all of that Kherson offensive. But if you wish to beleive in that, sure.

Why are you simping so much for a dictatorship?

Just stating facts.

Also, I'm not simping neither Putin neither Zelenskiy's form of dictatorships.

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-summon-turkey-envoy-after-russian-grain-ship-sailed-2022-07-07/

Ukraine to summon Turkey envoy after Russian grain ship sailed

It seems the disputed ship is back in Russian waters

[Lord Halifax]

As helpful as NATO has been, I'm not convinced they would go beyond Ukraine reclaiming its land up to the Feb 24th lines, and Ukraine needs their continued support to wage that kind of operation against Russia. America still won't provide long range missiles to Ukraine, for fear of triggering a major escalation from Russia (whatever that even means at this point). Hard to see how invading Crimea wouldn't be worse from that perspective.

Taking back the Crimean Peninsula would almost surely have to come later in the war (implying Ukraine has nearly pushed Russia out), given how much control Russia has over Southern Ukraine and how much of Ukraine's forces are tied up elsewhere, at which point it's easy to see Russia refusing to concede Crimea no matter what it takes, nuclear weapons included. Actually, as far as nukes go, the perekop isthmus is pretty ideal for halting an invading force, particularly given that Ukraine doesn't have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion. I don't know if it would ever come to that, but I just can't see Russia giving up Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

They are taking back small areas of territory around Kherson even as you typed this.

Another twitter offensive I suppose. In which they took for now maybe 3 unimportant villages. And even that's the question. In the same amount of time they lost two cities in SD and Lisichansk. Only villages around Lysychansk like Belogorovka are probably bigger advancement than all of that Kherson offensive. But if you wish to beleive in that, sure.

Why are you simping so much for a dictatorship?

He's a Serb, they can't help it. It's deeply ingrained in their culture.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

An update on the Kazakh oil/Russian coal crisis.

https://twitter.com/felix_light/status/1544929633548013568

Merely ordering a study could just be bluster and it gives Russia time to reverse course, but a trans-Caspian route would only require extending pre-existing pipelines from Western Kazakhstan to Azerbaijan.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Speaking of visual evidence, Ukrainian troops seem to have gone beyond the simple flag-planting mission/leaving Snake Island as no man’s land and are actively occupying it, for now. This seems dangerous, but perhaps Russia is weaker in the Black Sea than we thought.

If Ukraine intends to use it as a proper garrison, they could give their anti-ship missiles/surveillance network/anti-aircraft umbrella a bit more range without directly risking their Navy vessels.

https://mobile.twitter.com/armyinformcomua/status/1544984334557396992

https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-defence-ministry-says-warplane-hit-ukrainian-troops-snake-island-2022-07-07/

"Russia says missile strike hit and killed Ukrainian troops on Snake Island"

The Russians claimed to have killed those Ukraine troops.  So this is claim vs claim

An update on this - the Ukrainian Army corroborates the claim to an extent. They claim the island's pier was struck and significantly damaged.

[jaichind]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/06/business/medvedev-sakhalin-oil-gas-price-cap-russia-kishida/

"Japan to lose Sakhalin-2 rights if Kishida supports oil price cap, Medvedev warns"

There have been all sorts of maneuvers between Russia and Japan on Sakhalin-2  last few days as Russia pretty much moves to take over all foreign stakes.  Japan most likely could not afford to lose the cheap gas it provides and Russia most likely cannot afford to lose Japan as a customer. I suspect the endgame would be Japan continues to buy Russian gas but under "gas for RUB" scheme.

[Virginiá]

Talking about Ukraine taking back some territory is pure delusional at this point. Talking about Crimea while they are losing ground still. And they WILL continue to lose the ground in the East at least.

I didn't make a prediction about what was actually going to happen, only my thoughts on what would have to happen first before Crimea could even be considered.

So you can put away the strawmen, because a reminder of the status of the front lines is not needed from this forum's biggest Russian fanboy.