Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Skill and Chance]

Edit: additionally, if Russia "wins" land by even more barbaric and dangerous tactics (i.e. nukes), it loses even more internationally. China, for instance, would not want Russia to suggest to Taiwan etc. that they must develop their own nuclear programs or get nuked, but this is what nuking Ukraine would do.

That is already explicitly part of the PRC's red line on an all-out assault on ROC.   The PRC has been very public, clear, and explicit that ROC getting nuclear weapons or making consituatonal changes to the ROC Constitution that cuts territorial ties to Mainland China would automatically mean an all-out PLA assault on ROC. 

There was actually a secret ROC nuclear weapons program that got started in 1967 under Chiang Kai-Shek.  It was so secret that when ROC Prez Chiang Ching-Kuo's health deteriorated in the mid-1980s his stepmother Madame Chiang Kai-Shek stepped in as the head of an alternative chain of command to help move this nuclear weapon program along to make sure most of the military and political leadership is kept in the dark about it.   Had it progressed I think ROC would have had nuclear weapons by the early 1990s.  In 1987 this program was discovered by the CIA which pressured the ROC to terminate the program for fear that the PRC will find out soon and launch an all-out assault on ROC.  There was talk in the KMT administration in the 1990s of restarting it but it was decided that it was KMT policy to prioritize negotiations with CCP as the long-term solution to PRC-ROC problems.  A core DPP value is anti-nuclear power and DPP administrations have done everything to remove nuclear material from ROC including shutting down all nuclear power plants.  As a result, we can safely assume that a DPP or KMT administration would not have anything to do with nuclear weapons.

PRC-ROC relation is a flashpoint for conflict but ROC getting nuclear weapons can be safely ruled out as a source of open conflict.

Even if Taiwan didn't, there's a high chance that Vietnam, South Korea, or Japan would, all of which would make confrontations between these countries and China MUCH more dangerous in the future.

And also, Russia actually using nuclear weapons in Ukraine might very well cause the Taiwanese to think differently about nuclear weapons. Even if the probability is low, it's still high enough to be a major reason why Russian use of nuclear weapons would be a danger to China.

Probably Australia and Poland, too! Eventually, this road probably leads to every country with GDP per capita >$10K or so building nukes.   

[Skill and Chance]

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

[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.

[Skill and Chance]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1530595518639915008

Interesting.  Hopefully they have intentionally prioritized this over the Donbas, moving troops, etc. in a way that could explain the recent difficulties in the east?

[Skill and Chance]

Obviously this is not unexpected, but good to see him also acknowledging it.

Why is it good?

Because it is common sense.

Claiming "we will not stop until we get every inch of our land back" would be foolish, considering the fact that any UA troops crossing into Crimea (if it got that far) would get cooked by FOABs at best, tactical nukes at worst.

No point in firing up the population to expect such things if they are not feasible. If he did so, he would look like a loser in the eyes of the public even if he managed to press Russia into withdrawing to the pre war status quo, which would in reality be a massive win.

I’m inclined to think that the opposite is true. Telling your people that parts of their country will remain under foreign occupation in perpetuity must be bad for morale right now, which is worse than something being bad for morale a year from now.

His position feels pretty rational to me.  There are legitimate reasons to think a multi-year war would go poorly for Ukraine, especially now that they have reached the point where their continuing existence as a free country is not really in doubt.  Russia does have nukes and 3X as many people to throw at the war if they felt existentially threatened.   

I definitely don't think they should make a deal until they have taken their shot at recapturing Kherson, though.

[Skill and Chance]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1530595518639915008

Interesting.  Hopefully they have intentionally prioritized this over the Donbas, moving troops, etc. in a way that could explain the recent difficulties in the east?

I think it's kind of the reverse: that Russia going ALL IN on the Severodonetsk attack like we've been hearing, by definition, means that they're, well, ALL IN and that that just leaves attacking them somewhere else, if you can do it, a very tempting option.

Actually TAKING BACK Kherson is a massively optimistic goal, though. Taking a major city without leveling it is complicated at best.

That said, even if they can push significantly closer to it and seriously threaten it, it might draw the Russians away from their current push in Severodonetsk and force them to send forces back to hold Kherson, taking some pressure off.

Is this still true if a majority of the local population wants you back?  It looks like the WWII Allies took back Paris in less than a week of fighting, 2 weeks if you count armed resistance by the locals in anticipation. 

[Skill and Chance]

Russian priorities in Mariupol:

https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1534076982522265600

Horrible. Hopefully Ukraine will soon be able to retake Mariupol.

It would be just, but from a practical standpoint it's closer to Russia proper than to current Ukrainian frontlines.  They would have to be winning in a total rout to advance over 200 km into enemy territory.

[Skill and Chance]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-intelligence-russia-kyiv-military-b2096715.html

"Ukraine forces outgunned up to 40 to one by Russian forces, intelligence report reveals"

Not sure all the stuff/numbers being said in the report are true but this is another example of the Western media trying to prepare their population for likely future positive news for Russia's military advances.

Quite apart from the use of the classic weasel words "up to", if Russia had anything like that sort of numerical advantage they would be making sweeping advances rather than slow incremental gains?

Even incompetence has its limits given a supremacy of such an order of magnitude.

It is certainly true that given the hype of the Russian armed forces their ability to plan and execute large-scale advances seems far below par.  Their recent limited success is more of a success of massive artillery bombardment much like WWI Western front battles. 

Of course, things I think one has to keep in mind should be
a) Russian military doctrine has always been about the destruction of the enemy forces versus capturing territory.  Their current strategy could be more about their self-assessment that they are less likely to destroy the professional core of the Ukraine forces if they break the front and they fall back versus keeping the front static and luring the professional core to move to the front where they can be taken out slowly with brute mass artillery
b) Russian control of the air PLUS Western allies feeding up-to-date intelligence to Ukraine just make large-scale offensive hard for both sides.  Any large concentration of Russian forces for a large-scale offensive can be detected by the West and fed to Ukraine where counter-measures can be taken.  Likewise, Russian control of the air also means they can attack a large concentration of Ukrainian forces in the open who are getting ready for the offensive.

It seems these factors are producing a protracted grind attritional war and it comes down to which sides runs out of trained troops, equipment or political will.

Remarkable how much more this conflict resembles WWI than WWII.

[Skill and Chance]

Now that Ukraine is actually on the brink of winning the war,

This is a very dangerous assumption to make. If you take Ukraine's war aims as the complete liberation of national territory, that's unfortunately still very far off, even with this new round of aid. Of course, the hope is that Russia folds before we get to that point, but given past behavior I'm not comfortable betting on it.

The sad truth is that we're probably looking for at least another year of mostly-attritional warfare, albeit one marked by occasional Ukrainian gains like those we've seen around Kharkiv and in Kherson. The goal remains holding on, and being in this for the long haul will make the difference.

Not if we give Ukraine the weapons with which to overcome that Western Front-style stalemate, which we are beginning to do.  We can end this war this year militarily if we really want to.   

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, these are still a long ways away from the kind of aid that could achieve a front-wide breakthrough. Hell, in most respect we're still just helping Ukraine reach parity with Russia in terms of equipment.

I agree the US could single-handedly win this war for Ukraine in a matter of months if it really wanted to, but that would require a level of support that's probably at least one order of magnitude larger than the funds appropriated so far. And of course with the Putin stooges now running the asylum in the House, it's unclear if we'll get any more money for that. Frankly Biden could and should have done a lot more back when he had a friendly Congress, but at this point even that's beyond us. Either way, it's important to be realistic about what we're in for. I believe Ukraine can and must win, but it will not be quick or easy.

Given military history, if this drags on for years and years and both sides are 100% committed, Russia would presumably win due to having 3X the population unless the advantage of the NATO weapons is truly the equivalent of guns vs. swords in earlier eras.  Thankfully, I don't think Russia is 100% committed to this while Ukraine probably is.

[Skill and Chance]

To expand on Poland's recent contributions, they will be sending 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks, but also 60 T-72 variants (30 PT-91, their domestic upgraded tank, and 30 modernized T-72Ms)

https://mobile.twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1618881729250603010

If NATO can also pry loose the 30 T-72s from Slovakia and ~80 T-80U tanks from Cyprus, then it'll be a party!

You do realize that people are dying right?

Thanks for the crocodile tears, Woodman.

Ukraine has every right to defend itself and we are right to provide them with effective means to do that.  However, some of the comments in here are very dismissive about the suffering of war.  It feels a bit too much like the summer of 1914 in here.  There's nothing fun about this.