Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[rc18]

Yes, it's amazing how everyone thinks that now...


Anyway, sort of related to the topic. More fun and games from Putin;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60113233
Ireland tells Russia live-fire naval exercise is 'not welcome'

...But the timing and location of have raised eyebrows among some defence pundits.

The area - off the west coast of Europe - is far from any of Russia's permanent naval bases, and is also near several critical transatlantic data cables, which defence experts have warned Russia could pose a risk to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are some countries in NATO I see finding every trick in the book they can offer to get out of going to war over Lithuania.

The text of the treaty is clear enough. It wouldn't matter. This, of course, is precisely why allowing Ukraine into NATO is secretly unpopular amongst the governments of many NATO member states - including yours.

Now that Russian military conflict is more plausible than just a theoretical, I don't think certain states in NATO would even let the Baltic states in now if they had the vote today. (Ditto the EU, the likes of Ireland and Malta should be going to war if needed to defend Lithuania's territorial integrity.)

Perhaps, but this is not relevant. They are members now and have been for over fifteen years.

[StateBoiler]

It wouldn't matter. This, of course, is precisely why allowing Ukraine into NATO is secretly unpopular amongst the governments of many NATO member states - including yours.

I've made that point very clear. We're having an argument about them being allowed to join where help would be obligatory when no one is placing troops in the country when it's voluntary, so the West are standing up for Ukraine to join NATO when it requires unanimity for their accession and that unanimity is not coming in the near future.

Now that Russian military conflict is more plausible than just a theoretical, I don't think certain states in NATO would even let the Baltic states in now if they had the vote today. (Ditto the EU, the likes of Ireland and Malta should be going to war if needed to defend Lithuania's territorial integrity.)

Perhaps, but this is not relevant. They are members now and have been for over fifteen years.

I don't see the Germans or a lot of the EU going to war for the Baltics. Just my opinion, I think they will look to find a way out of it if/when push comes to shove. Treaties don't last forever after all. I'll gladly be proven wrong.

Going from the EU state point of view versus NATO treaty member, some Irish posters elsewhere have argued to me they should never go to war to defend another EU member in conflict because they want Ireland neutral in all conflicts, so goes pan-EU defense.

[Storr]

Yes, it's amazing how everyone thinks that now...


Anyway, sort of related to the topic. More fun and games from Putin;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60113233
Ireland tells Russia live-fire naval exercise is 'not welcome'

...But the timing and location of have raised eyebrows among some defence pundits.

The area - off the west coast of Europe - is far from any of Russia's permanent naval bases, and is also near several critical transatlantic data cables, which defence experts have warned Russia could pose a risk to.

Russian stunts like this are why long neutral countries like Sweden and Finland have been seriously considering NATO membership as of late. They are conducting the exercises in international waters 240km (150 miles) from shore that are part of Ireland's Exclusive Economic Zone. They could have easily chosen somewhere 50 miles further from Ireland (EEZ extends to 370km/200miles from land) in order to not needlessly aggravate a [edit: non NATO] neutral country that poses no threat to Russian interests.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/590482-russian-threats-against-ukraine-could-push-finland-and

Russia constantly complains about NATO expanding ever closer to its borders. But with how it treats its neighbors (much less 1,700km away Ireland), can you blame them for wanting the protection Article 5 provides?

[StateBoiler]

Yes, it's amazing how everyone thinks that now...


Anyway, sort of related to the topic. More fun and games from Putin;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60113233
Ireland tells Russia live-fire naval exercise is 'not welcome'

...But the timing and location of have raised eyebrows among some defence pundits.

The area - off the west coast of Europe - is far from any of Russia's permanent naval bases, and is also near several critical transatlantic data cables, which defence experts have warned Russia could pose a risk to.

Russian stunts like this are why long neutral countries like Sweden and Finland have been seriously considering NATO membership as of late. They are conducting the exercises in international waters 240km (150 miles) from shore that are part of Ireland's Exclusive Economic Zone. They could have easily chosen somewhere 50 miles further from Ireland (EEZ extends to 370km/200miles from land) in order to not needlessly aggravate a neutral country that poses no threat to Russian interests.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/590482-russian-threats-against-ukraine-could-push-finland-and

Russia constantly complains about NATO expanding ever closer to its borders. But with how it treats its neighbors (much less 1,700km away Ireland), can you blame them for wanting the protection Article 5 provides?

Ireland are not in NATO for the record.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

[Storr]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

My favorite comment was that "Sweden could also claim St. Petersburg". I'm pretty sure Putin wouldn't mind that.

[StateBoiler]

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-foreign-ministers-russia-debate-weapons-training-ukraine/

[nicholas.slaydon]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

[StateBoiler]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

[GoTfan]

Christ, there's a lot of people on here failing to realise that this is not a videogame.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

And in the late 1200s, it was under Mongolian control, but I'm not sure the relevance.

[Velasco]

The 'Biden doctrine' and the Ukrainian gaffe. A mixed year in foreign policy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/23/biden-ukraine-russia-foreign-policy-afghanistan-china-nato

  Joe Biden marked his first anniversary in office with a gaffe over Ukraine that undid weeks of disciplined messaging and diplomatic preparation.

The president’s suggestion that a “minor incursion” by Russia might split Nato over how to respond sent the White House into frantic damage limitation mode (...)

[Lord Halifax]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

Egypt, Ethiopia, and......?

[LabourJersey]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts



https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

Egypt, Ethiopia, and......?

Liberia, maybe? Though that country was still a construct in the true sense

[StateBoiler]

If you want to be critical of Ukrainian military preparedness, here's a Canadian colonel:

AT = anti-tank, KZ = kill zone

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/forum/international-defense-geopolitics-discussion/europe-and-russia/1578933-2021-2022-russo-ukrainian-crisis/page3#post1580107

I have a very low view of the Ukranian military. Ok, the high tech stuff they have an excuse for but there is absolutely no reason why shovel and concrete have not been used to their fullest extent. The Ukrainians had over 6 years to prepare. There is ONE fortified trench in the south. There should be at least 3. The Soviets built up Kursk against three German armies in 6 months. The UKR had over a year since last uproar and not one single AT minefield had been laid. Not one single KZ has been set out.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the UKR is extremely capable of repelling the Russians. All it takes is a will which they are lacking. The Iraqis did a better job in Kuwait than the Ukrainians are doing now. Why the Iraqis failed is that they did not obey the Soviet tenet that as soon as the Americans hit your lines, rush forward. It's not like the Ukrainians are lacking in military expertise. They have senior leadership that came out of the same Soviet military academies as the Russians.

The Ukrainians should have absolute confidence that they can repel the Russians. The fact that they don't says more of their unwillingness than of their incapabilities.

There is something else being ignored. This is NOT about Moscow against Kiev as much as Kiev supporters like to pretend otherwise. This is about Russian speaking Ukrainians vs Ukraninian speaking Ukrainians. This is brother against brother and it's the damndest ugliest kind of war. It takes a lot to get family to bloodlust for each other and once that hate sets in, pride and ego is the only thing keeping a man from going insane about killing his own brother. Pride and ego is the only thing stopping you from killing your own kids after you killed your brother.

So, to answer your question, how capable are the Ukrainians in conducting a prolonged insurgency. Very capable. Just as capable as the Ukrainians are in suppressing it.

Like even now, I would be digging AT trenches like crazy. Yes, the Ukrainians don't have enough ATGMs but they've got recoiless rifles up the ying-yang. I would be entrenching brigades along the invasion routes (with proper fall back positions). I would expect my positions to be over-run but also I would keep a tiger force well hidden to attack Russian LOCs once the main force moved past me.

In short, I would be getting damned ready and I would be absolutely confident that I can carry out the mission I set out before me. I've got an entrenched brigade. I could at least meet a Russian division head on.

Are the Russians ready to move in 5 days? No? You know how many AT trenches I can dig or how many minefields I can set up. Hell, do you even know how many KZs and ambush points can be set up by that time? And what the hell have Kiev been doing all this time? Bellyaching. "We need NATO help." Bullsh**t! At the very least, set up the defences to make the Russians bleed and buy time.

Hell, the Ukrainian Army is 170,000 strong and that's not counting the reserves. The Russians massed 100,000 on the border but only 60,000 are deployed and a good percentage of those are facing the DNR and LNR. Wake the f#ck up. The Russians shifted their forces and Kiev didn't have time to shift forces around or to call up their reserves?

All this says to me that Kiev doesn't want to fight. They want NATO to do it for them.

Do you have sources on the present deployment of Ukrainian forces? I have found sources for Russian military buildups off the New York Times but I cannot find anything for Ukrainian positions other than the common knowledge deployments around the LNR/DNR region.

That's because there isn't any Ukrainian build up. Nothing is out of the ordinary for Dnipro. The people in the HQ are thinking about war but doing absolutely nothing about it. Oh, I don't know, if not concrete, how about sandbags barriers? How about at least taping up the windows if not plywood boarding them outright. How about letting everyone know about where the shelters yet.

Or much better, MOVE THE DAMNED HQ INTO THE FIELD, you know where IT SUPPOSED TO BE?

Regarding the lack of fixed positions, maybe this is a difference of doctrine? I found this article about "active defense" based in Soviet doctrine and how both the Ukrainians and Russians would be expected to use similar tactics. Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

It's just another variation of the feigned retreat but the point about obstacles and minefields is not to stop the enemy but to channel them into KZs. Within this context, the Russians would be fighting to breach a minefield to discover a weakpoint that is not guarded and pour troops through only to find those troops wandered into a kill zone.

This works in both receiving an attack or a counter-attack. Russian engineers will setup minefields and artillery to channel a counter-attack into KZs.

And I know the Ukrainians have not been trained for this because we have not trained armoured warfare with them. But if you're caught in a KZ, your best chance for survival is to attack straight on. People are shooting at you and you've just got caught with your pants down. You don't have time to judge what's around you. Just step on the gas and go straight. It is muscle memory pure and simple and unless you've trained for these situations, you're not going to have the muscle memory to just step on the gas. You'll freeze in trying to figure out what to do.

[Lord Halifax]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

Egypt, Ethiopia, and......?

Morocco, arguably dating back to the 11th century and ruled by various Berber dynasties in the Middle Ages. Conquered by the Arab Saadis in 1549 and reunited by the currently reigning Alaouite dynasty in 1631 after a few decades of turmoil and disintegration. The brief French and Spanish protectorates don't change the fact that Morocco as a polity is as old as many Western European countries.

[DavidB.]

If you want to be critical of Ukrainian military preparedness, here's a Canadian colonel:

AT = anti-tank, KZ = kill zone

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/forum/international-defense-geopolitics-discussion/europe-and-russia/1578933-2021-2022-russo-ukrainian-crisis/page3#post1580107

I have a very low view of the Ukranian military. Ok, the high tech stuff they have an excuse for but there is absolutely no reason why shovel and concrete have not been used to their fullest extent. The Ukrainians had over 6 years to prepare. There is ONE fortified trench in the south. There should be at least 3. The Soviets built up Kursk against three German armies in 6 months. The UKR had over a year since last uproar and not one single AT minefield had been laid. Not one single KZ has been set out.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the UKR is extremely capable of repelling the Russians. All it takes is a will which they are lacking. The Iraqis did a better job in Kuwait than the Ukrainians are doing now. Why the Iraqis failed is that they did not obey the Soviet tenet that as soon as the Americans hit your lines, rush forward. It's not like the Ukrainians are lacking in military expertise. They have senior leadership that came out of the same Soviet military academies as the Russians.

The Ukrainians should have absolute confidence that they can repel the Russians. The fact that they don't says more of their unwillingness than of their incapabilities.

There is something else being ignored. This is NOT about Moscow against Kiev as much as Kiev supporters like to pretend otherwise. This is about Russian speaking Ukrainians vs Ukraninian speaking Ukrainians. This is brother against brother and it's the damndest ugliest kind of war. It takes a lot to get family to bloodlust for each other and once that hate sets in, pride and ego is the only thing keeping a man from going insane about killing his own brother. Pride and ego is the only thing stopping you from killing your own kids after you killed your brother.

So, to answer your question, how capable are the Ukrainians in conducting a prolonged insurgency. Very capable. Just as capable as the Ukrainians are in suppressing it.

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not support a Russian invasion.

[Cassius]

If you want to be critical of Ukrainian military preparedness, here's a Canadian colonel:

AT = anti-tank, KZ = kill zone

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/forum/international-defense-geopolitics-discussion/europe-and-russia/1578933-2021-2022-russo-ukrainian-crisis/page3#post1580107

I have a very low view of the Ukranian military. Ok, the high tech stuff they have an excuse for but there is absolutely no reason why shovel and concrete have not been used to their fullest extent. The Ukrainians had over 6 years to prepare. There is ONE fortified trench in the south. There should be at least 3. The Soviets built up Kursk against three German armies in 6 months. The UKR had over a year since last uproar and not one single AT minefield had been laid. Not one single KZ has been set out.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the UKR is extremely capable of repelling the Russians. All it takes is a will which they are lacking. The Iraqis did a better job in Kuwait than the Ukrainians are doing now. Why the Iraqis failed is that they did not obey the Soviet tenet that as soon as the Americans hit your lines, rush forward. It's not like the Ukrainians are lacking in military expertise. They have senior leadership that came out of the same Soviet military academies as the Russians.

The Ukrainians should have absolute confidence that they can repel the Russians. The fact that they don't says more of their unwillingness than of their incapabilities.

There is something else being ignored. This is NOT about Moscow against Kiev as much as Kiev supporters like to pretend otherwise. This is about Russian speaking Ukrainians vs Ukraninian speaking Ukrainians. This is brother against brother and it's the damndest ugliest kind of war. It takes a lot to get family to bloodlust for each other and once that hate sets in, pride and ego is the only thing keeping a man from going insane about killing his own brother. Pride and ego is the only thing stopping you from killing your own kids after you killed your brother.

So, to answer your question, how capable are the Ukrainians in conducting a prolonged insurgency. Very capable. Just as capable as the Ukrainians are in suppressing it.

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not support a Russian invasion.

Correct. On the other hand, they are less likely to put up serious resistance to a Russian invasion and would be the key base of support for a ‘puppet government’ (although I don’t think a puppet government is especially likely).

[DavidB.]

Correct. On the other hand, they are less likely to put up serious resistance to a Russian invasion and would be the key base of support for a ‘puppet government’ (although I don’t think a puppet government is especially likely).

There is a wide range of opinions among Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Many (perhaps most) are just as patriotic as their Ukrainian-speaking compatriots. Some oppose an invasion but will be less likely to put up resistance. Others support an invasion. But the first group is bigger than the second and the second bigger than the third, and then you have everything in between. Any "puppet government" would be very unlikely to have substantial support.

[StateBoiler]

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not support a Russian invasion.

I considered leaving it out because it had nothing to deal with military preparedness, but he was making the point that if the Ukrainians wanted to fight off the Russians, they could be preparing a lot better than what they're doing now. If the Ukrainians are not planning effectively for a defensive war, what is Zelensky's administration doing at home and why? Any Ukrainians care to offer?

I think a puppet state is a non-starter and is why Putin making a play for Kiev is not likely. Why would the Russians want that headache? Compare to 8 years ago, they took Crimea bloodlessly and the Ukrainians, Europeans, and Americans just stood by and watched like a bunch of eunuchs.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not support a Russian invasion.

I considered leaving it out because it had nothing to deal with military preparedness, but he was making the point that if the Ukrainians wanted to fight off the Russians, they could be preparing a lot better than what they're doing now. If the Ukrainians are not planning effectively for a defensive war, what is Zelensky's administration doing at home and why? Any Ukrainians care to offer?

I think a puppet state is a non-starter and is why Putin making a play for Kiev is not likely. Why would the Russians want that headache? Compare to 8 years ago, they took Crimea bloodlessly and the Ukrainians, Europeans, and Americans just stood by and watched like a bunch of eunuchs.

Because Crimea got Russia little. Almost a decade after 2014 and Russia is contemplating drastic action to compel a hostile Ukraine that is rearming and ever more closely aligning to NATO from slipping out of the Russian sphere. The only way to upset the current equilibrium is some sort of regime change in Kyiv.


As for why Ukraine is downplaying the threat of an invasion, there may be a few reasons. One is that mobilising on the borders could give Russia a casus belli. Another is to avoid panic in the general public. And the suspicion that western governments may be hyping a military threat from Russia in order to bounce Ukraine into making concessions on the Minsk process etc..

[StateBoiler]

Because Crimea got Russia little. Almost a decade after 2014 and Russia is contemplating drastic action to compel a hostile Ukraine that is rearming and ever more closely aligning to NATO from slipping out of the Russian sphere. The only way to upset the current equilibrium is some sort of regime change in Kyiv.

I disagree. I've said why before.

As for why Ukraine is downplaying the threat of an invasion, there may be a few reasons. One is that mobilising on the borders could give Russia a casus belli.

Talk about your self-defeating prophecies.

"When the General was asked why he did not place forces near the Belarussian border when Russian forces gathered there that led to them being unopposed when they invaded the country, he said it was at the suggestion of political leadership so as to not provoke Russia into an invasion."

Another is to avoid panic in the general public.

We're past that point don't you think?

And the suspicion that western governments may be hyping a military threat from Russia in order to bounce Ukraine into making concessions on the Minsk process etc..

How is intentionally placing yourself into a weaker defensive position aid that?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As for why Ukraine is downplaying the threat of an invasion, there may be a few reasons. One is that mobilising on the borders could give Russia a casus belli.

Talk about your self-defeating prophecies.

"When the General was asked why he did not place forces near the Belarussian border when Russian forces gathered there that led to them being unopposed when they entered the country, he said it was at the suggestion of political leadership so as to not provoke Russia into an invasion."

Another is to avoid panic in the general public.

We're past that point don't you think?

And the suspicion that western governments may be hyping a military threat from Russia in order to bounce Ukraine into making concessions on the Minsk process etc..

How is intentionally placing yourself into a weaker defensive position aid that?

I don't think it makes sense, but those are reasons why Ukraine is downplaying. I think on some level the Ukrainian leadership knows that it couldn't effectively resist a full invasion, so is hoping against hope. I also think there's the fear that raising the stakes will make it harder for Putin to back down without losing face, and that not losing face at this point would require major Ukrainian concessions of their sovereignty.