Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1659890397433192454

Hmmm I wouldn’t call a meeting with India in G7 as the global south eager to support Ukraine lmao

Like, it was Ukraine who requested bilateral meetings with India and Brazil in the G7, as part of their strategy to get support from where they are lacking it. India accepted, Brazil still didn’t. Meaning it’s Ukraine who recognizes the multipolarity of the world is already a reality and that they NEED support from major global south players since the West backing is clearly not enough. Which confirms that the multipolar theory is already a reality.

Or Ukraine is reaching out to India (and less extent Brazil) because they outside of China are the only other to have the ability to put political pressure on Russia to give up

Incorrect, because since the end of 2022 Ukrainian diplomats have started to look to African countries as well. The concern is regarding the global south non-alignment as a whole and not just limited to India.

The only African country they have reached out to is South Africa who again are in the “one of the only countries Russia might listen to” boat

[Hindsight was 2020]

As usual a pretty good take from Mr. OBrien on Bakhmut.


https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1659961033279119360?s=20

Lol in the comments
https://twitter.com/albertinek666/status/1659961712739581952?s=12

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1659993883873353728?s=12
 

[Torie]

Russia’s Wagner group claims to have captured Bakhmut but Ukraine says it still controls a part of it

The chief of the Russian private military group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, claimed Saturday that his forces have taken complete control of the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut after months of brutal fighting.

“The operation to capture Bakhmut lasted 224 days,” he said in a video posted to Telegram, seeking to claim a final victory in the city.

CNN could not independently verify Prigozhin’s claim, but an initial response from the Ukrainian side disputed it.

Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar, in a Telegram post less than an hour after the Russian mercenary’s claim was published, admitted the situation in Bakhmut was “critical” but said Ukrainian troops were still “holding the defense” in a district on Bakhmut’s western-most edge.

“As of now, our defenders control certain industrial and infrastructure facilities in the area and the private sector,” she said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/20/europe/bakhmut-capture-wagner-ukraine-russia-intl/index.html

How does Wagner group's claim, or more importantly Ukraine's admission the situation is critical, jive with all the well corroborated reports of Ukrainian advances in Russian retreats in the area over the past days?

Wagner may have taken the final few blocks in the grid of the compact city, but Ukraine shaved back both flanks, so instead of the line being a bulge into Bakhmut, it is now straighter. And now Ukraine says it intends to shave the flanks back further, and instead of Russia encircling and trapping Ukraine soldiers inside Bahkmut, the tables will be turned, and the trapped rats will be Russians.

That may be Ukraine silly buggering Russia to keep them busy in that vicinity, rather than move to the line holding Ukraine back from the Sea of Azov.

[Beet]

The PRC will definitely benefit from the cumulative subsidence of the economies of the West and the former USSR. This will allow the PRC to dictate its terms to the West and finally subjugate the Commonwealth of Independent States. And in the long run to bargain for the takeover of Taiwan.

Cui prodest in full height.

PRC gains economically mostly by having its industrial competitors in the EU saddled with higher energy costs and it also can penetrate the Russian market much more easily.  I guess PRC makes minor geopolitical gains.  Geopolitically the big winner clearly is India.

So far, I see that India has egg on its face, since it has always depended on Russian weapons, and now the reputation of these weapons is lost, and the reputation of India itself will be lost if these purchases continue.

We can see one of the things China won right in the photo above, but what do you think India wins?

Now everyone, the PRC-Russia super bloc, and the collective West, now wants India on their side and be their friend.  A great geopolitical coup for India.

No, the PRC would rather go to war with India over some uninhabited barren ice caps in a place where no one can even breathe than have India on its side. India for its part now has one hostile neighbor to the north and another humiliated ally to the north, forcing it to become a vassal to the West. China is isolated and has no real allies except.... Russia. Russia is humiliated and is currently celebrating the "liberation" of a bunch of charred out ruins no one had ever heard of a year ago. Ukraine joins Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in the dubious "my country was destroyed in the 21st century" hall of fame. Europe suffered an energy crisis and has lost a major trading partner. As far as I can see, everyone is a loser.

The only real winner here is the U.S. For the cost of a relative pittance in military aid and no U.S. troops, it is achieving a major strategic victory over Russia. If you look at the U.S. economy in recent years, and it's continual generation of new innovations like SpaceX, ChatGPT, and so on, it's clear it's pulling further away from the rest of the world. In the future, political, economic and military power will increasingly be concentrated here; unipolarity is rising.

[Pericles]

https://twitter.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1659993883873353728?s=12
 

Bakhmut upgraded from Verdun to Stalingrad?

[jaichind]

https://twitter.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1659993883873353728?s=12
 

Bakhmut upgraded from Verdun to Stalingrad?

Sorry this sounds a bit silly to me

1) If there is a large Ukraine counteroffensive to encircle Bakhmut it would make very little sense to advertise it.  Using the Stalingrad example the USSR did everything to disguise the fact there is any concentration of USSR forces on the flanks of the Battle of Stalingrad.  The Stalingrad encirclement took place in just four days mostly because of the element of surprise.

2) Earlier this year when Zelensky spoke to the joint session of the USA Congress he said "The battle for Bakhmut will be the turning point of this war."  If there is a large-scale Ukraine counteroffensive in Bakhmut then that would be the great turning point Zelensky spoke about.  If so why is he not even in the country let alone the situation room to monitor the battle that will decide this war?  Using the Stalingrad example, from late Nov 1942 to early Dec 1942 Stalin was glued to the situation room to monitor Operation Uranus (Stalingrad) and its less famous and less successful Mars (Rzhev).  It would be like Biden saying to his staff late Oct 2024 "Ok guys, I am going to the Caribbean Summit a week before the election and I will be back a week after and I will find out the results of the election after I come back."

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1659975239365697540?s=20

[Storr]

Something is on fire in Mariupol:

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1659625250789703706?s=20

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1659630457359843328?s=20

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1659963627216969730?s=20

[Storr]

After 9 months of fighting, the most bloodiest and fierce battle so far this war came to an end today. 100% of Bakhmut is now under the elements of the Russian Federation.

Phyrrus sends his regards.

I was wondering why Progzhin would declare Bakhmut "100% captured" today. He's declared multiple times before that his forces had captured places long before they were actually under their control, so why today? The tweet below makes a lot of sense. Declare victory on a symbolic day and then quickly get Wager forces out of there, handing positions over to "regular" Russian military units.

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1659954933230100480?s=20

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1659911694724870144

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The burden lies on Russia and Wagner to prove they have complete control over Bakhmut.

[Storr]

Politico claims the Biden admin agrees to support an effort to train Ukrainian pilots to use jets, including the F-16, in Europe: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/19/fighter-jets-ukraine-biden-00097846

Potential donors of F-16 down the line, according to the source, include Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands; nothing has been decided yet.

The F-16 is not the ideal platform by a long shot, but its selling point is that it will be the most available. The nature of US support here is going to be very important - training capacity in some European air forces may be very limited at the moment according to certain analyses I've read. Politico's source describe the training initiative as taking [only? at least?] months.

Better late than never.

Portugal joins:

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1659756077637042183?s=20

Italy says it might join the fighter coalition. Italy used to fly F-16s, but stopped using and returned them in 2012 after their 10 year lease from the US ended.

Poland has already said it cannot supply its F-16s to Ukraine because it has too few. I'm guessing Ukraine will end up with at least some of Norway's F-16s, which were retired last year after the country received its F-35s. The Defense Minister said yesterday that handing them to Ukraine was "not on the agenda now", but we've seen how quickly agendas can change in this war.

Norway received 72 F-16A/B which were built from 1980-84, and two F-16B-15OCU in 1989 which were replacements for planes lost in crashes.  

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1660026492414308358?s=20

[pppolitics]

Politico claims the Biden admin agrees to support an effort to train Ukrainian pilots to use jets, including the F-16, in Europe: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/19/fighter-jets-ukraine-biden-00097846

Potential donors of F-16 down the line, according to the source, include Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands; nothing has been decided yet.

The F-16 is not the ideal platform by a long shot, but its selling point is that it will be the most available. The nature of US support here is going to be very important - training capacity in some European air forces may be very limited at the moment according to certain analyses I've read. Politico's source describe the training initiative as taking [only? at least?] months.

Better late than never.

Portugal joins:

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1659756077637042183?s=20

Italy says it might join the fighter coalition. Italy used to fly F-16s, but stopped using and returned them in 2012 after their 10 year lease from the US ended.

Poland has already said it cannot supply its F-16s to Ukraine because it has too few. I'm guessing Ukraine will end up with at least some of Norway's F-16s, which were retired last year after the country received its F-35s. The Defense Minister said yesterday that handing them to Ukraine was "not on the agenda now", but we've seen how quickly agendas can change in this war.

Norway received 72 F-16A/B which were built from 1980-84, and two F-16B-15OCU in 1989 which were replacements for planes lost in crashes.  

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1660026492414308358?s=20

Most likely, the F-16s are going to come from countries who have (or are close to) retiring their F-16s in favor F-35s.

[NOVA Green]

Something is on fire in Mariupol:

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1659625250789703706?s=20

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1659630457359843328?s=20

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1659963627216969730?s=20

I sniff (without any data yet) that long range British missiles might well be at play here.

We already know courtesy of the MoD that at least some have been deployed to Ukraine, and at least a couple targets have been struck using such missiles over the past week.

The Russian "Cowardly Cutlets" are getting just deserts served on a plate, with more to come.

[NOVA Green]

Meanwhile Rob Lee, whose opinions I respect immensely, retweeted a post which appears to indicate that Wagner forces suffered significant losses with the Ukrainian Counter-Attack around Bakhmut, with the cause being lack of armored vehicles...

This should be of interest to the handful of "doomers", or even hypothetically closet Russian supporters on this thread, since it goes against the narrative that has been carefully spun by the Kremlin, even contrary to various statements from Russian Mil-Bloggers and even Putin's chef himself.



https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1660040835973406794?s=20

[Hindsight was 2020]

Meanwhile Rob Lee, whose opinions I respect immensely, retweeted a post which appears to indicate that Wagner forces suffered significant losses with the Ukrainian Counter-Attack around Bakhmut, with the cause being lack of armored vehicles...

This should be of interest to the handful of "doomers", or even hypothetically closet Russian supporters on this thread, since it goes against the narrative that has been carefully spun by the Kremlin, even contrary to various statements from Russian Mil-Bloggers and even Putin's chef himself.



https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1660040835973406794?s=20

I saw that thread too and wouldn’t shock me

[NOVA Green]

Atlas Nation / Hive please explain to me why delivery of F-16's to Ukraine will be helpful within the context of a short-term perspective (Ukrainian Offense of Spring > Fall of '23).

1.) These jets require extremely long and smooth airfields, of which I believe Ukraine only has one which would currently allow F-16s for take-off and landing.

2.) These jets require "uber clean" storage and maintenance as opposed to the various MiGs currently available to the Ukrainian Air Force.

3.) Evidence of any construction of runways to house F-16 fighter jets within Ukraine would be easily spotted by Russian and commercial satellite imagery, making them an inviting target for the various waves of drones and missiles which Russia has at it's disposal.

Arguably, would not Ukraine be better off if for example F-16s from current NATO allies, to be swapped out for MiGs from Central and Eastern European fleets?

If Sweden would substitute all of their Gripen's in exchange for F-16s, it actually might make better military sense in that the Gripens perform much better on shorter airfields when it comes to take-off and landings, and plus can go toe-to-toe with the latest Russian fighter jets.

I get the logic that NATO doubling down with provisioning Ukraine with F-16s sends a clear message to Russia that regardless of the outcome of the anticipated and much vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive, effectively says that the coalition will help ensure that Ukraine has some degree of air parity against a much more numerically powerful, and generally non-degraded Russian Air Force.

I'm still struggling with the idea of how F-16s will help Ukraine in the short term (Current offensive season), even if they were to be delivered to Ukraine Tomorrow.

Thoughts Atlas Hive?

[Red Velvet]

The PRC will definitely benefit from the cumulative subsidence of the economies of the West and the former USSR. This will allow the PRC to dictate its terms to the West and finally subjugate the Commonwealth of Independent States. And in the long run to bargain for the takeover of Taiwan.

Cui prodest in full height.

PRC gains economically mostly by having its industrial competitors in the EU saddled with higher energy costs and it also can penetrate the Russian market much more easily.  I guess PRC makes minor geopolitical gains.  Geopolitically the big winner clearly is India.

So far, I see that India has egg on its face, since it has always depended on Russian weapons, and now the reputation of these weapons is lost, and the reputation of India itself will be lost if these purchases continue.

We can see one of the things China won right in the photo above, but what do you think India wins?

Now everyone, the PRC-Russia super bloc, and the collective West, now wants India on their side and be their friend.  A great geopolitical coup for India.

No, the PRC would rather go to war with India over some uninhabited barren ice caps in a place where no one can even breathe than have India on its side. India for its part now has one hostile neighbor to the north and another humiliated ally to the north, forcing it to become a vassal to the West. China is isolated and has no real allies except.... Russia. Russia is humiliated and is currently celebrating the "liberation" of a bunch of charred out ruins no one had ever heard of a year ago. Ukraine joins Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in the dubious "my country was destroyed in the 21st century" hall of fame. Europe suffered an energy crisis and has lost a major trading partner. As far as I can see, everyone is a loser.

The only real winner here is the U.S. For the cost of a relative pittance in military aid and no U.S. troops, it is achieving a major strategic victory over Russia. If you look at the U.S. economy in recent years, and it's continual generation of new innovations like SpaceX, ChatGPT, and so on, it's clear it's pulling further away from the rest of the world. In the future, political, economic and military power will increasingly be concentrated here; unipolarity is rising.

Lmao at the constant delusion about India. But at least you confirm that a bunch of people cheering for more war in the name of “Ukraine solidarity” do it under the notion that US can gain something from a weaker and more dependent Europe becoming an American vassal.

India is in the most comfortable position ever. They aren’t “forced” to turn to West at all if they don’t think they have something to gain from it (China still is a bigger economic partner and they won’t go directly against Russia) and the hard desperation/pressure on G7 for India and Brazil to meet and align with Ukraine is evidence of just that. It’s one side searching for the other, with the “USA/Ukraine” looking to India and not the opposite. India is strong nowadays exactly because they have power to choose.

You’re right about Europe being biggest losers of the war though (no choice other to suck up to US) and to a lesser extent, USA being a winner from this. Although how much USA wins depends on maintaining a balance where they don’t look weak but also don’t go overboard putting all their bets for a low-strategic country like Ukraine. It’s not convenient to them, to say the least, to alienate the entire world based on that, which is why that balancing act would be smart for them.

European interest is to stop Russia; US interest is to weaken both Europe and Russia so that Europe is forced back towards them after a period of “European independence” during Merkel. While Russia has to concentrate all its money and weapons in sustaining a long-term war. There’s a reason why you won’t see this war ending soon, either by inconvenient peace negotiations (dovish solution) or by more incisive military help being sent for Ukraine to close the deal (hawkish solution). That balancing act is exactly what the Americans want/expect, to send a large amount of aid to look helpful but not that much, especially regarding more strategic and expensive models.

Biggest loser of all isn’t EU or Russia though, but Ukraine itself. Who have a real drive to protect their country but are being used and have no real choice in the middle of the desperation. Russia invading in one side and in the other people acting using it as cannon fodder for their interests. It has even less of a choice than Europe (forced to suck up to US) or Russia (forced to suck up to China).

Places that are given more of a choice, like the bigger Global South countries, are the closest you can say “win” something because they have some impactful weight in global affairs together and their alliance is being actively disputed in middle of more critical times. And they will use the opportunity to advance their interests and get concessions from all sides.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Atlas Nation / Hive please explain to me why delivery of F-16's to Ukraine will be helpful within the context of a short-term perspective (Ukrainian Offense of Spring > Fall of '23).

1.) These jets require extremely long and smooth airfields, of which I believe Ukraine only has one which would currently allow F-16s for take-off and landing.

2.) These jets require "uber clean" storage and maintenance as opposed to the various MiGs currently available to the Ukrainian Air Force.

3.) Evidence of any construction of runways to house F-16 fighter jets within Ukraine would be easily spotted by Russian and commercial satellite imagery, making them an inviting target for the various waves of drones and missiles which Russia has at it's disposal.

Arguably, would not Ukraine be better off if for example F-16s from current NATO allies, to be swapped out for MiGs from Central and Eastern European fleets?

If Sweden would substitute all of their Gripen's in exchange for F-16s, it actually might make better military sense in that the Gripens perform much better on shorter airfields when it comes to take-off and landings, and plus can go toe-to-toe with the latest Russian fighter jets.

I get the logic that NATO doubling down with provisioning Ukraine with F-16s sends a clear message to Russia that regardless of the outcome of the anticipated and much vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive, effectively says that the coalition will help ensure that Ukraine has some degree of air parity against a much more numerically powerful, and generally non-degraded Russian Air Force.

I'm still struggling with the idea of how F-16s will help Ukraine in the short term (Current offensive season), even if they were to be delivered to Ukraine Tomorrow.

Thoughts Atlas Hive?

It’s not going to help with this season the point of the F16s is most here know the war will drag into next year so having these is helpful long term

[pppolitics]

Atlas Nation / Hive please explain to me why delivery of F-16's to Ukraine will be helpful within the context of a short-term perspective (Ukrainian Offense of Spring > Fall of '23).

1.) These jets require extremely long and smooth airfields, of which I believe Ukraine only has one which would currently allow F-16s for take-off and landing.

2.) These jets require "uber clean" storage and maintenance as opposed to the various MiGs currently available to the Ukrainian Air Force.

3.) Evidence of any construction of runways to house F-16 fighter jets within Ukraine would be easily spotted by Russian and commercial satellite imagery, making them an inviting target for the various waves of drones and missiles which Russia has at it's disposal.

Arguably, would not Ukraine be better off if for example F-16s from current NATO allies, to be swapped out for MiGs from Central and Eastern European fleets?

If Sweden would substitute all of their Gripen's in exchange for F-16s, it actually might make better military sense in that the Gripens perform much better on shorter airfields when it comes to take-off and landings, and plus can go toe-to-toe with the latest Russian fighter jets.

I get the logic that NATO doubling down with provisioning Ukraine with F-16s sends a clear message to Russia that regardless of the outcome of the anticipated and much vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive, effectively says that the coalition will help ensure that Ukraine has some degree of air parity against a much more numerically powerful, and generally non-degraded Russian Air Force.

I'm still struggling with the idea of how F-16s will help Ukraine in the short term (Current offensive season), even if they were to be delivered to Ukraine Tomorrow.

Thoughts Atlas Hive?

They aren't.

[Virginiá]

Australia’s Mothballed F/A-18 Hornets Should Be Given To Ukraine
Dozens of upgraded F/A-18s in storage in Australia after years waiting to be sent to the U.S. should be donated immediately to Ukraine.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/australias-mothballed-f-a-18-hornets-should-be-given-to-ukraine

In the meantime, we have even heard rumors that if the Hornets do not get exported, they could be destroyed. This is hardly out of character for the RAAF, which famously buried its F-111 "Pig" swing-wing combat jet fleet after retirement. Doing so to the Hornets would be a shame, bordering on outrageous, considering there is a country very much in need of fourth-generation fighters.

There has also been some talk that Finland's relatively pristine F/A-18C/Ds could be provided to Ukraine. This makes little sense at this time as the country will be converting over to the F-35A starting in 2026. This was further swatted down by officials recently under that same logic — they need their Hornets now more than ever. But Finland's Hornets could be ideal candidates to bolster Ukraine's fleet of ex-RAAF Hornets towards the latter half of the decade, as the country transitions to the F-35A. That process should be complete by around 2030. Finland has roughly 62 F/A-18C/Ds.

Spain is also drawing down its EF-18 Hornet fleet and looks to unload it entirely by the end of the decade. The Hornet is also in the twilight of its service life with Switzerland, where 25 of the type will serve into the early 2030s when they will be replaced more than in full by the F-35A.

Canada will be operating its upgraded and expanded CF-18 fleet until the F-35 arrives in full, but now there is a clearer timeline on when that will actually happen. The F-35 transition will begin in the second half of this decade. Once it is complete, nearly 100 F/A-18 airframes will become surplus.

So hundreds of CF-18s will eventually be offered for transfer or spare parts by the end of the decade.

There are also 40 Kuwaiti F/A-18C/Ds, some of the best-condition Hornets around, that are still up for grabs. Malaysia, which operates the F/A-18D and will continue to do so well into the 2030s, has had an interest in them, as have the U.S. Marine Corps. And that brings us to the latter. Nearly 100 F/A-18C/Ds will serve the USMC at least until the end of the decade in a highly upgraded form. Support and training within the NAVAIR ecosystem are still going strong and hundreds of Legacy Hornets have recently been retired from the U.S. Navy and USMC, leaving a large inventory of parts.

In terms of capabilities and performance, the F/A-18 is arguably better suited for Ukraine than the F-16. As a twin-engine design that excels at slow-speed handling, it is more in line with Ukraine's MiG-29 and Su-27 fleets. Its very robust carrier-capable landing gear is also better suited for Ukraine's Soviet-era airfield infrastructure and potential for distributed and austere operations, which Ukraine has been executing to make targeting harder for Russian forces. Like the F-16, it can carry pretty much anything that would be available to Ukraine now and in the future and can be quickly adapted to handle new capabilities if need be.

The general idea here being that there are a lot of potential F/A-18 sources, many upgraded with new radar systems able to use the air-to-air missiles Ukraine wants F-16s for (not to mention built-in support for things like JDAM, cruise missiles, etc).

With so many being offloaded this decade, this is a fairly decent way to rapidly build up Ukraine's air force, if the will and money is there for it.

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/AlexBondODUA/status/1659955973241335814

[Hindsight was 2020]

I don’t get why out of all South America countries that Brazil seems to harbor the most pro-Russia sentiment. Between Lula ducking Zelensky at G7 and Amorim pushing conspiracy theories about Bucha being staged, they have certainly gone out of their way to make any view they could be a neutral arbitrator obsolete

[Red Velvet]

I don’t get why out of all South America countries that Brazil seems to harbor the most pro-Russia sentiment. Between Lula ducking Zelensky at G7 and Amorim pushing conspiracy theories about Bucha being staged, they have certainly gone out of their way to make any view they could be a neutral arbitrator obsolete

Lula has accepted to meet with Zelenskyy this Sunday, like Modi did on Saturday.

I think you’re confusing opening for independence with “Pro-Russia sentiment”. There aren’t other countries in South America, or even Latin America, that have the opportunity that Brazil has to act on their self-interests in the middle of this. It’s both the size + the existing circumstances that allow us to be the only place in the region with the possibility of a global leadership even if by default.

Mexico, the #2 of Latin America, has a more open economy and one that is inherently way too tied with the one from the USA because of geographic proximity. Argentina (#3) is drawn on deep internal economic problems of their own to have any global leadership on those matters; Colombia (#4) still is very US dependent; Chile (#5) is very limited by a very small population, besides lack of regional representation and Peru (#6) is the biggest example of political chaos and lack of national sovereignty.

Which makes Brazil the big regional power practically by accident since there’s no other place in the region that can fulfill or compete with this role in a truly independent way. Whenever Brazil lacks leadership, Latin America basically becomes a full wasteland and completely disconnected with the world.