The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

DefensiveDave

New Member
Good question. I think given the weight of the Russian force and dwindling supplies on the the Ukraine side its easy to assume its only a matter of time. but.

Given the ferocity of the Ukrainian Defensive effort and the slow progress of the Russian forces one has to wonder if a truce could result

What we dont know is what are the goals of the Russian Invasion?
To secure the integrity of the two breakaway regions?
To take eastern Ukraine say from the Dneiper east?
Or to topple the Government and install a Russian puppet regime similar to Belarus?

What i do suspect is the longer the Ukraine can hold on and inflict growing casualties on the VDV the greater chance of a cease fire.
I just don't see a Puppet Government happening. Eastern Ukraine maybe and leave the decimated scraps and blame it all on Ukrainian resistance. As others have mentioned here that's a huge operation to occupy and control the whole of Ukraine with the current Russian military presence no way, that will be a long drawn out conflict over years.
 
Last edited:

JGCAC

New Member
Alleged leaked documents suggesting the invasion was approved on January 18 and planned for a two week initial campaign:

 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Yes but how fast can they actually take Kiev and do they have sufficient resources? The biggest danger is getting bogged down in a protracted urban fight. As it is they're already behind schedule. Also, even if Kiev falls the Ukrainian political leadership can operate from another city or town. It's not as if the loss of Kiev will have a major impact on the Ukraine's ability to continue resisting.
To me, it seems that the war is already protracted and Russians are behind schedule. According to one source, Russia had set an objective of completely occupying Kyiv, if not the entire Ukraine, by the 2nd of March. That clearly has not happened. Russia might be in for a long haul of urban warfare unless it is able to cut off Ukraine from the rest of Europe and also impose a no-fly zone over it. So far the performance of Russian forces and their weapons platforms have not been impressive (judging purely on what we have seen on media). This makes one wonder if Russia is up to the task of achieving its war objectives in time, if at all.

I think Russia wants the Ukrainian government to go into exile and install its own puppet regime. It is, however, going to stare down at the Eastern European states, like Poland, who may attempt to accommodate the government. Question is, whether they would have any capacity to do so after this war?
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
What i do suspect is the longer the Ukraine can hold on and inflict growing casualties on the VDV the greater chance of a cease fire.
Doubt it. A truce would be totally inconsistent with Putin's aims and would be ammunition to his derractors back home. Would also make him look weak and would be an admission that his military has failed.

IMO he would have been better off avoiding getting bogged down in Kiev and instead focus on isolating it, seizing other smaller and less defended cities and causing as much damage he can to the Ukrainian military.

So far the performance of Russian forces and their weapons platforms have not been impressive (judging purely on what we have seen on media.
I think it's Russian performance at an operational and tactical level rather than weapons systems which has been less impressive.

I think Russia wants the Ukrainian government to go into exile and install its own puppet regime.
Unless he has a group of exiles just waiting to return or can attract large numbers of collaborators, I don't see how he can form a puppet government.

If the conflict drags on indefinitely will Zelensky be tempted to make a deal? A cessation of hostilities and a withdrawal of the Russians in exchange for the Ukraine writing in stone that it will never join NATO? Ultimately the Ukraine is caught between the West and Russia. Sure it wants to be aligned with the West and has to safeguard its territorial integrity and interests but it also has to ensure that it alone makes all the major decisions. Long after all this is over it will be interesting to see in detail what advice Zelensky's Western backers had for him in the run up to hostilities.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Logically yes. If they do not clear the surroundings they might find themselves besiged. But it's a big "might." By taking Kyiv they can topple the government and make things very complicated for Ukraine and its allies. Delaying it would keep on giving room to Kyiv to rally for support both within Ukraine and outside of it.
Except so far there has been no attempt to take Kiev and instead they've been doing exactly what Sturm suggests, isolating the city, and slowly at that. First from the north-west, then the west, now the north-east. I suspect next will be east, after the fall of Kharkov and south-east from the Krivoy Rog area. South-west will probably be the last open route out, and it's the one they've designated as the humanitarian corridor for civilians to leave. This last part leads me to suspect that they will assault Kiev after all, but likely only after the fall of Kharkov and Sumy, and the encirclement of Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk-Krivoy Rog area.

Your post is quite the opposite of the reports in the drive.com war zone which seems to be weighted to Ukraine successes.

from what I can see it looks like the battles in the north are not going as well for the Russians as the battles in the south. If the Russians were to create a land bridge from the crimea to to area north of the azov sea they would be very happy.
There is overwhelming sympathy for Ukraine coupled with Russia underperforming and Ukraine overperforming in relation to expectations. This has led to a deceptive media picture where Russia is somehow losing. Based on what I see, this does not reflect reality. Russian troops are moving relatively quickly through Ukraine, blocking major cities initially, and clearing them afterwards. In some areas like Kharkov-Sumy they encountered serious resistance (though they're blasting their way through Kharkov at what appears to be a good pace for a city of that size and complexity). At Berdyansk, Melitopol', and Kherson, they seem to have encountered almost no resistance. Mariupol' is likely going to be a tough nut to crack, that assault just began. If you compare the tempo of Russia's advance to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, it becomes a little more understandable. And remember, the US military is much better organized, has better logistics and maintenance, and managed to bribe portions of Iraqi high command into not fighting.

From CNN live feed Live updates: Russia invades Ukraine (cnn.com) :

A confrontation between Ukrainian civilians and Russian forces in the town of Konotop ended with a defiant message from the town's mayor and — according to the Ukrainian side — an agreement to preserve peace.

Konotop is a small town in the northeastern region of Sumy.

Social media video verified by CNN shows a Russian delegation emerging from city hall to be confronted by an angry crowd. One of the Russians appears to hold up two hand grenades as he returns to his vehicle, while onlookers shout abuse and jostle the Russians, chanting "shame."

His vehicle and a Russian infantry fighting vehicle then left.

The Sumy regional authorities reported that “in Konotop, the invaders came to negotiate with city authorities. According to Mayor Artem Semenikhin, the Russian military came out and told him to surrender the city. They threatened to fire artillery on the city.”

But the mayor “explicitly defied threats,” the authorities said.


There is a shout of approval, while some in the crowd said women and children should be evacuated.

“I'm voting for fighting back. But the decision has to be taken by everyone, because the artillery is aimed at us,” he said.

Later, Dmytro Zhyvytsky, head of Sumy region military administration, said an arrangement had been reached with the Russians.

“The conversation between my representative from the military administration and Russians in Konotop lasted about 12 minutes,” Zhyvytsky said.



Quite astonishing if true. Has this been verified by other sources? If this really happened it clearly shows that many Russian soldiers are not very comfortable with this war against their "Ukranian brothers" and how it's conducted.
It's not that astonishing. It's the Chechnya-Syria playbook. Threaten-negotiate-compromise. If Russia wins and replaces the government in Kiev, it's very likely the new government will keep the same flag, so letting fly doesn't matter. If the city government needs to be replaced, by the time this is an issue Russia will have control of Ukraine and it can be done from Kiev. There's no downside to letting Ukrainian police and municipal services operate, quite the opposite. The more the town feels like life is normal the less likely they are to throw things at Russian vehicles, or form a guerilla resistance cell. Remember, while there's a standing Ukrainian army, and a government in Kiev, any resisting town leeches troops from the offensive movement. After that army and government fall, any town is left on it's own, isolated, and facing any level of force Russia chooses to bring.
 
Last edited:
Mobilised DNR militia man in Nikolayevka with ancient Mosin–Nagant model 1891/30 sniper rifle (PU 3.5×21 sight?):
DNR militia

Losses, according to RMoD:
Russian military - 498 dead, 1697 wounded;
Ukrainian military - more than 2070 dead, about 3700 wounded, 572 captured
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I know this is sort of the ultimate question, but is there any chance for Ukraine right now to hold off Russia, at least away from Kiev?
I suppose this depends on what you mean by "away". Russian troops are in the Kiev suburbs from the west and north-west, and approaching the suburbs from the east. I think there is almost 0 chance that Ukraine will counter-attack and dislodge those troops. I suspect the chance depends on whether any large units escape from the LDNR front where encirclement looms, and on how willing Russia is to commit forces.

To me, it seems that the war is already protracted and Russians are behind schedule. According to one source, Russia had set an objective of completely occupying Kyiv, if not the entire Ukraine, by the 2nd of March. That clearly has not happened. Russia might be in for a long haul of urban warfare unless it is able to cut off Ukraine from the rest of Europe and also impose a no-fly zone over it. So far the performance of Russian forces and their weapons platforms have not been impressive (judging purely on what we have seen on media). This makes one wonder if Russia is up to the task of achieving its war objectives in time, if at all.

I think Russia wants the Ukrainian government to go into exile and install its own puppet regime. It is, however, going to stare down at the Eastern European states, like Poland, who may attempt to accommodate the government. Question is, whether they would have any capacity to do so after this war?
If this timeline is accurate, then Russian planning was completely unrealistic, to the point of lunacy. At literally 0 resistance, merely the act of occupying space takes time. With any level of resistance, fighting in urban areas becomes a serious issue. Kharkov has already shown that there will be urban combat, the question is how much and how successful Russia will be.

I think it's Russian performance at an operational and tactical level rather than weapons systems which has been less impressive.
I suspect this is accurate, and was at least partially fueled by a misunderstanding of what the nature of this conflict would be.

Unless he has a group of exiles just waiting to return or can attract large numbers of collaborators, I don't see how he can form a puppet government.
This is exactly the case though. There are already hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who fled westward. By the time this is done, it will be millions. And these aren't migrants, these are refugees. Most will want to return given the chance.

If the conflict drags on indefinitely will Zelensky be tempted to make a deal? A cessation of hostilities and a withdrawal of the Russians in exchange for the Ukraine writing in stone that it will never join NATO? Ultimately the Ukraine is caught between the West and Russia. Sure it wants to be aligned with the West and has to safeguard its territorial integrity and interests but it also has to ensure that it alone makes all the major decisions. Long after all this is over it will be interesting to see in detail what advice Zelensky's Western backers had for him in the run up to hostilities.
Russia is asking for more then this already. Remember, Ukraine's non-bloc status was in the constitution, but this didn't prevent Yuschenko from making a bid for NATO membership. I don't see how any assurance or guarantee will be worth more then the paper (or stone) on which it is written without other factors. There's a reason Russian included demilitarization and "denazification" as the conditions. They want to make sure that if Ukraine does lean west-ward, Russia will be in a position to carry out another military operation easily either directly or via proxies.
 
Last edited:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member

141 votes for the resolution, 35 abstentions (including China) and 5 votes against.

I wonder if this will be reported in Russian state media, or if it will be swept under the carpet with just a reference to the statements of Russia and cronies who spoke against it?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member

141 votes for the resolution, 35 abstentions (including China) and 5 votes against.

I wonder if this will be reported in Russian state media, or if it will be swept under the carpet with just a reference to the statements of Russia and cronies who spoke against it?
RT reported it, so yes. It will be reported by Russian state media.

 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member

141 votes for the resolution, 35 abstentions (including China) and 5 votes against.

I wonder if this will be reported in Russian state media, or if it will be swept under the carpet with just a reference to the statements of Russia and cronies who spoke against it?
The GA holds very, very, little real power (other than a few things like whether to accept new member states). It's a talk shop. While such a resolutuon carries moral weight and allows the leaders of all member countries to officially express their sentiments in a newsworthy fashion, whatever power the UN wields sits in the SC Perm Five seats*. Will Russian media report it? Likely they will. Will it make much difference when it comes to popular opinion of the war? Likely not.

*I'm sure you and the regulars here know this very well and I don't mean to insult your intelligence. I add things like this for lurkers, etc. Many ordinary Americans tend to have an extremely poor understanding of how the UN works in my experience.

EDIT: I see @Feanor already answered. When I clicked on the RT link, I got a delay and then a spinning wheel for "checking your browser for entry to RT." I've never got that before when accessing RT. Maybe it means nothing, maybe it's just a techie thing for browser compatibility, or maybe they are gathering info on locations accessing the site, etc.
 
Last edited:

denix56

Active Member

141 votes for the resolution, 35 abstentions (including China) and 5 votes against.

I wonder if this will be reported in Russian state media, or if it will be swept under the carpet with just a reference to the statements of Russia and cronies who spoke against it?
It will be told that the dirty West money bought all that countries or the old Nazis after WWII got into government and support the Ukraine now.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Russia Today is internationally focused, though. The question is what the domestic broadcasters will say in terms of spinning it, assuming they do report the actual vote count.
It's a Russian-language version of RT and it included the actual vote count. It also cited RIA Novosti, which also reported on it.


EDIT: To clarify there's a version of RT called RT in Russian which is aimed among other things at the domestic audience.
 

hellfire

Member
After a Indian student was killed with contradictory statements with either was shot dead or by shelling in Kharkiv.
Those students closer to Kyiv where also racial targeted and beaten up Ukrainen armed forces.

Prime minister Modi spoke to Putin.
FM3LHfiagAAziM-.jpg
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Except so far there has been no attempt to take Kiev and instead they've been doing exactly what Sturm suggests, isolating the city, and slowly at that. First from the north-west, then the west, now the north-east. I suspect next will be east, after the fall of Kharkov and south-east from the Krivoy Rog area. South-west will probably be the last open route out, and it's the one they've designated as the humanitarian corridor for civilians to leave. This last part leads me to suspect that they will assault Kiev after all, but likely only after the fall of Kharkov and Sumy, and the encirclement of Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk-Krivoy Rog area.
You already know this, of course, but a glimmer of hope for lurkers:

The first thing UNHCR (lead agency for international aid agencies) does is call for and negotiate humanitarian corridors (1) for movement of refugees and IDPs and (2) for safe and orderly passage of aid vehicles (including ICRC, etc.), as in vehicles bringing aid into a city under seige and setting up aid stations along the refugee route (ICRC was able to set up a water station very quickly on the outskirts of Vasilkiv). This is all standard playbook.

It is in the interest of the invading force to open such a corridor. Obviously, one aspect is the humanitarian and PR aspect: fewer civilian caualties, fewer civilians suffering under a siege, etc. There's also the morale aspect. Yes, those who remain in the city are brought food, water if needed, medical supplies, additional generators for hospitals, etc. and suffer less. But the more people who leave, and the longer they continue to leave has an effect on morale as well, especially if there are rumors of closure of the corridor, imminent assault, etc. Sometimes the beseiging army periodically shoots off loud and scary stuff not aimed at the city just for effect.

Another aspect is who chooses the route. Refugee columns clog roads and pose other obstructions and problems for military units on both sides (invader and defender). It's quite obvious the Russians have got the advantage of choosing the route of course chose the one most to their advantage, and it was likely chosen well before the invasion. Problems can and do arise when military on the defender's side attempt to mix in troops and military vehicles in with the civilian refugees in order to save equipment and regroup in an area not yet seized by the invader (which gets civilians killed if the invader decides to deny the defender those assets and takes them out).

Another problem for the invader (and headache for aid workers) is the defender attempting to smuggle weapons and ammunition into the city, mixed in with aid. The invader sets up checkpoints, of course, to interdict this, usually with international observers from a top-tier aid agency present (in the interest of both sides -- the defender cannot falsely claim the invading army prevented supplies coming through without being corrected by a respected international agency, and the invading side cannot as easily falsely claim weapons are being smuggled in -- these checkpoints do cause delays and sometimes bottlenecks, though.)

I hope this highlights the importance of aid agencies observing strict neutrality and limiting themselves releasing only verified and honest statements in such settings. The increasing tendency of some organizations toward activism and bias is counterproductive and ultimately harms those they claim to want to help and erodes the ability of other agencies to operate as effectively. This does not mean aid agencies cannot or should not protest or condemn actions of any side, far from it -- so long as they are honest and accurate when doing so. It also explains why it is important for UNHCR to vet and coordinate aid organizations allowed into the theater. Any and every NGO (some are highly dubious, some outright grifters) dashing about is not only messy, it's dangerous.

The opening of the corridor in and of itself does not mean the Russians intend to storm Kiev as a Plan A scenario. It's also standard for a seige scenario. Military strategy and movements and political concerns are better clues to what the Russians are planning, IMHO.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
After a Indian student was killed with contradictory statements with either was shot dead or by shelling in Kharkiv.
Those students closer to Kyiv where also racial targeted and beaten up Ukrainen armed forces.

Prime minister Modi spoke to Putin.
View attachment 48974
There have also been problems for ethnic Greeks and Greek expats in Odessa and Mariupol (from Australian site for those of Greek heritage in the Anglosphere -- some articles over-the-top anti-Ukranian, some extremely pro-Ukrainian, occasionally more balanced with less polemic.)


These are rather on the wild side and include highly dubious rumors heard by ethnic Greek Ukrainians, but some useful info:

Via AFP, the Greek embassy in Kiev reported (incident happened 24 Feb):
"As tensions over an invasion ran high earlier this month, a Greek expatriate died in a clash in eastern Ukraine which Athens blamed on Ukrainian soldiers.Two other ethnic Greeks were injured, the Greek foreign ministry said."

Ten ethnic Greek civilians have reportedly been killed by Russian bombing in Mariupol.

EDIT: For those who have newly taken an interest in this conflict, there are around 100,000 ethnic Greeks in Ukraine (Greece says slightly more, Ukraine says less), mainly in Donetsk Oblast. As best I can tell, about 90% are Hellenistic Ukrainian citizens and about 10% expats/newer immigrants. For a quickie wiki history of Greeks in Ukraine:

As for Greeks in Greece, and those of Greek heritage in the West, this must wrenching, as they tend to side with their Orthodox brothers, but at the same time Greece is a NATO country siding against Russia and Greeks are also outraged at the invasion. Could explain the rather schizo one-extreme-or-the-other nature of the articles on that site.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
These are rather on the wild side and include highly dubious rumors heard by ethnic Greek Ukrainians, but some useful info:
Thanks for sharing. I've seen uncorroborated claims that Ukrainian forces are preventing civilians from evacuating Mariupol', and this helps substantiate them. I also got a sad chuckle out of some of the contents.

“Of course not, it’s all made up, there are just a lot of people who are interested in Nordic mythology,” said one fighter when asked by The Guardian in 2014 if there were neo-Nazis in the battalion.

When asked what his own political views were, however, he said “national socialist”. As for the swastika tattoos on at least one man seen at the Azov base, “the swastika has nothing to do with the Nazis, it was an ancient sun symbol,” he claimed.
Yeah... Nordic mythology, national socialism and sun symbols. No Nazis here. What's the difference between Nazi and National Socialist again?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
There have also been problems for ethnic Greeks and Greek expats in Odessa and Mariupol (from Australian site for those of Greek heritage in the Anglosphere -- some articles over-the-top anti-Ukranian, some extremely pro-Ukrainian, occasionally more balanced with less polemic.)


These are rather on the wild side and include highly dubious rumors heard by ethnic Greek Ukrainians, but some useful info:

Via AFP, the Greek embassy in Kiev reported (incident happened 24 Feb):
"As tensions over an invasion ran high earlier this month, a Greek expatriate died in a clash in eastern Ukraine which Athens blamed on Ukrainian soldiers.Two other ethnic Greeks were injured, the Greek foreign ministry said."

Ten ethnic Greek civilians have reportedly been killed by Russian bombing in Mariupol.

EDIT: For those who have newly taken an interest in this conflict, there are around 100,000 ethnic Greeks in Ukraine (Greece says slightly more, Ukraine says less), mainly in Donetsk Oblast. As best I can tell, about 90% are Hellenistic Ukrainian citizens and about 10% expats/newer immigrants. For a quickie wiki history of Greeks in Ukraine:

As for Greeks in Greece, and those of Greek heritage in the West, this must wrenching, as they tend to side with their Orthodox brothers, but at the same time Greece is a NATO country siding against Russia and Greeks are also outraged at the invasion. Could explain the rather schizo one-extreme-or-the-other nature of the articles on that site.
This website seems shady as hell. Their "about section" is poorly and unprofessionally written. They are a very new entity (from 2021), literally no info on them whatsoever online, media bias/fact check website doesn't even list them (yet). Very bad website design, as if aesthetics were an afterthought.

Pretty sus to me.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Top