The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[GermanHerman]

This is extremely serious and can be a major escalation in this conflict. Would Russia use chemical weapons? when and at what stage will Russia decide to use chemical agents? I don’t see them using it because it will tarnish what ever opportunity they have left to push their own narrative and can also make countries that sympathise with them turn against them..

I agree, the use of chemical agents would only realy make sense at the heavily fortified combatliens in the east but besides antagonizing the world even more there are civilians around these villages that are mostly ethnic russians.

The only reason to actualy use them would be as a "show of force" but to who and why would that be necessary?

Russia states more limited war goal to 'liberate' Donbass

In a scaled-back formulation of its war goals, Russia said on Friday that the first phase of its military operation was mostly complete and it would focus on completely "liberating" Ukraine's breakaway eastern Donbass region.

www.reuters.com

If this report from Reuters is correct russia seems to limit its goals further.

"The combat potential of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has been considerably reduced, which ... makes it possible to focus our core efforts on achieving the main goal, the liberation of Donbass."

Given the fact that we saw little to no movement in the North and Ukraine taking back territory in the South this is not realy a surprise.
I think Odessa is no longer threatend which would free up some more troops to dedicate towards counter attacks toward kherson.

 

[Vivendi]

In my (lay-person) opinion this op-ed has several interesting points, and I think I agree with most of what they say. Introduction:

We are skeptical about what we are reading, hearing, and seeing from reporters and commentators talking as if they found a way to pierce the fog, unmask the protagonists, and discover what is actually happening in Ukraine.

As images flash across our screens incessantly, and we search for signals in the blizzard of words about what is happening in Ukraine, we remind ourselves that we are members of the audience in a theater of war (and we hope before not too long, peace). On the battlefield, there can be no question about the fact that real bombs and bullets are destroying buildings and killing human beings. (So, we are sure this is not just a sequel to Wag the Dog.) But as the protagonists fight on the battleground and in economic and financial markets, they are at the same time engaged in an intense information war. Each actor attempts to shape the narratives, find images that reinforce its messages, and craft words that stir emotions to sustain the morale of its warriors and citizens. Each is also working to impact the views and actions of governments and publics in the wider world.

Piercing the Fog of War: What Is Really Happening in Ukraine? | The National Interest

Of what they say, so far only one thing that I question:

Since Putin has now become so indelibly a pariah, we assess that it is unlikely that the bulk of sanctions will be removed so long as it remains Putin’s Russia, thus making the obstacles to a successful agreement that much more formidable.

I would suggest that perhaps it depends quite a lot on how the war ends, and the agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The sanctions are hurting also the West quite a lot, and I think many Western countries would prefer to end the bulk of the sanctions as soon as possible, even if Putin is still in charge in Russia.

 

[Capt. Ironpants]

Hi have a read about this

MMP: Azov Battalion

cisac.fsi.stanford.edu

Also, slandering a respected member here with a history of good (and extensive) factual provision is a no-no. He hasn’t done what you falsely accuse him of, so don’t do it. It raises the question as to what you are motivated by and what you are doing.

A very useful link. Thank you. My post at The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread did not seem to get through to this person. I hope yours will, but I doubt it.

It is sad that in some quarters any facts which might be interpreted as even slightly critical of the Ukrainian side are denounced as Russian propaganda or "taking the side of the Russians" no matter how clearly the presenter of those facts makes known his condemnation of the Russian invasion, or worse, such facts are simply not allowed. @T.C.P da Devil touched on this earlier in his The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread . I am most grateful facts are not suppressed here and for the mods who take us to task when we get careless about backing up our assertions with evidence.

If the claims made by those leaving Mariupol about gross human rights abuses committed by Azov are true (and many of the claims match up with previous actions documented by UN Human Rights Officers as can be found in the link in my previous post) -- it seems unjust to me to deny that these people may have truly suffered not only at the hands of the Russians, but also, secondarily and simultaneously, at the hands of those supposedly there to defend them. Any civilized person feels great sympathy for every person suffering now in Ukraine. It does not seem to do the civilians of Mariupol any kindness to dismiss their claims out of hand. Again, we will have to wait for verification of some of the claims and be content with question marks in the meantime.

 

[John Fedup]

What does ''drastic action'' really mean? Could mean various things really. Would a tactical nuke on a non NATO country lead to military action on the part of NATO?

If their is no serious response then it is a huge incentive for non-NATO countries to join.

Whether ''significant'' or not NATO air power over the Ukraine would mean NATO and Russia are at war. Is there actually the political will within NATO for war with Russia?

Fair question and if NATO isn’t prepared to respond to Russia’s use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine with airpower within Ukraine only then I really wonder if and how NATO would respond to a Baltic invasion. New interpretation of article 5? No wonder some are rethinking the value of obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe the number of invasions of nuclear armed countries is very short.

 

[CumbrianRover]

The disconcerting thing is most Canadians are well aware about how ill equipped our military is but simply don’t give a $hit. Junior is at the top of the list. His attendance at the recent NATO meeting, frigging waste of government air travel.

Did he pop over to Latvia to encourage your people over there?

 

[CumbrianRover]

If their is no serious response then it is a huge incentive for non-NATO countries to join.




Fair question and if NATO isn’t prepared to respond to Russia’s use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine with airpower within Ukraine only then I really wonder if and how NATO would respond to a Baltic invasion. New interpretation of article 5? No wonder some are rethinking the value of obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe the number of invasions of nuclear armed countries is very short.

Ergo, is understanding Article 5.

It is waved around much like Chamberlain did with his piece of paper:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


Such action as a country DEEMS necessary.

Interesting word.

 

[QEDdeq]

Interesting announcement today from Russia that they will focus on 'liberating' Donbass. This raises the following question:
- why would Russia openly announce this now? (it was already obvious that they are shifting in this direction)

I think its because it achieves two things (and then possibly a third):

1) they can claim they have destroyed enough military infrastructure in other parts of Ukraine and therefore partly achieved one of their initial stated objectives - 'demilitarization'. This particular objective can be further enhanced through negotiation (e.g. Ukraine agrees to maximum ceilings regarding troops and weapons, no NATO accession, etc). So the Russians can now sit in defensive positions and let Ukrainians get into attack mode to retake occupied land, lift encirclements, etc. Basically they move the pressure of achieving something and attacking from their shoulders to the Ukrainians.

2) moves the focus on Donbass where the Russians are likely to achieve their goals in the coming weeks. Also moves the pressure on Ukraine to defend the most difficult part of the front.

(3) there's no guarantee that after achieving their objectives in Donbass they wont find another reason to resume the war in other sectors.)

@QEDdeq Please provide a source as per forum rules. Thank you.

Ngatimozart.

 

[John Fedup]

Did he pop over to Latvia to encourage your people over there?

A visited two weeks ago but not on this latest trip to Belgium.

 

[Feanor]

I agree, the use of chemical agents would only realy make sense at the heavily fortified combatliens in the east but besides antagonizing the world even more there are civilians around these villages that are mostly ethnic russians.

The only reason to actualy use them would be as a "show of force" but to who and why would that be necessary?

Russia states more limited war goal to 'liberate' Donbass

In a scaled-back formulation of its war goals, Russia said on Friday that the first phase of its military operation was mostly complete and it would focus on completely "liberating" Ukraine's breakaway eastern Donbass region.

www.reuters.com

If this report from Reuters is correct russia seems to limit its goals further.

I suspect this is a tacit admission that they've failed in plan A and plan B, and are now on to plan C. A fixing force against major centers in the north, and meanwhile a move to clear the LDNR areas, and retain that "land corridor to Crimea".

 

[CumbrianRover]

I suspect this is a tacit admission that they've failed in plan A and plan B, and are now on to plan C. A fixing force against major centers in the north, and meanwhile a move to clear the LDNR areas, and retain that "land corridor to Crimea".

In terms of logistics could Russia sustain the Eastern pockets, could they sustain the manpower attrition politically?

Ukraine would have a hand tied behind her back because of Belorus so could never direct full force on the enclaves, equally, she has to defend her seaboard and against forces in Moldava, finally, she'll be open to Air and Arty unless she can infiltrate Russia proper and sabotage locations.

Are we heading for stalemate or will sanctions bite so much that Russia will completely back down?

And if Russia uses NBC on the Eurasian continent what exactly will the West do?

Only questions Mr Moderator, apologies in advance.

 

[Steinmetz]

I don't see any reason taking Odessa now either. If they leave that city alone, that'll be the only major port Ukraine has left. They can use that as a bargaining chip, and if hostilities erupt after a future ceasefire, they can just blockade the port like they're doing now.

 

[STURM]

I really wonder if and how NATO would respond to a Baltic invasion. New interpretation of article 5?

In the event it actually happens NATO would respond by taking various conventional military steps. Of that I have no.doubt. Ultimately the Baltic states are NATO members; the Ukraine is not. Whilst NATO is united when it comes to assisting the Ukraine; not all members are eager to take things to a new level or up a notch unless Russia does it first.

No wonder some are rethinking the value of obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe the number of invasions of nuclear armed countries is very short.

Well, the "Dear or Great Leader" [whatever they actually call him] is still firmly in power in Pyongyang [there is intention to perform regime change on him and his regime] and Saddam and Gadaffi are gone. The only reason NATO mechanised uunits are not on the outskirts of Odessa defending the city and NATO air power isn't hitting Russian supply columns coming in from Belarus is because Russia is a nuclear power. That says it all doesn't it?

 

[T.C.P]

Finland, a country of 5.5 million people, and ranked 42 in the world by GDP declared yesterday they are sending more military equipment to Ukraine. This time they will not inform about what they will send, for security reasons. The Finnish government says the shipment will not impact Finnish defence capabilities.

Previously they have shipped 2,000 bulletproof vests, 2,000 composite helmets, 100 stretchers and equipment for two emergency medical care stations, 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges for the rifles, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons and 70,000 combat ration packages.
Finland to send additional military equipment to Ukraine | News | Yle Uutiset

I think many countries have a lot to learn from Finland, on many different levels. Finland was one of the few countries (perhaps the only?) in Europe that had at least some in-country resources to handle the COVID-19 epidemic from day one (Finland and Coronavirus: ‘Prepper Nation of the Nordics’)

It's a small, but great country!

Well to be fair, if Canada and New Zealand bordered Russia, they would probably have plenty of reserve extra stockpiles of weapons and munitions too. I can see that several members are frustrated with their nation's inadequacies in this front, but in the post coldwar pax Americana, only the Western nations who faced any threat at all in the last 30 years were the ones close to Russia.
@John Fedup can you really blame the Canadian voter base, until Xi came to power and China went all 'stronk', what threats did Canada face at all, hell even Russia was on friendly-ish terms prior to the 2012. If my country was in the same position as Canada, I would want our defense budget to be low too. Even with rising Chinese military flexing, to the average Canadian what threat does China or even Russia pose, many voters dont want their country to project miitary power abroad and want the military strong enough purely for defesnive purposes.

Going back to Finland, their dangerous geographical proximity, harsh climate, past history of war and small but highly educated and very homogenous population makes them what they are.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I suspect this is a tacit admission that they've failed in plan A and plan B, and are now on to plan C. A fixing force against major centers in the north, and meanwhile a move to clear the LDNR areas, and retain that "land corridor to Crimea".

It's insane. If Russia had just launched a limited war with those objectives, it might have been able to meet them and claim a victory of sorts - albeit at the cost of the bulk of Ukraine shifting even closer to NATO and receiving military aid.

But by aiming so high without the necessary preparation this statement is going to be taken by NATO and other countries as an admission of defeat by Russia, especially given the significant losses Russia has sustained.

 

[T.C.P]

It's insane. If Russia had just launched a limited war with those objectives, it might have been able to meet them and claim a victory of sorts - albeit at the cost of the bulk of Ukraine shifting even closer to NATO and receiving military aid.

But by aiming so high without the necessary preparation this statement is going to be taken by NATO and other countries as an admission of defeat by Russia, especially given the significant losses Russia has sustained.

I was about to comment just that. If they had destroyed all Ukrainain military infrastructure with missiles and avoided losing so many soldiers by trying to encircle Kiev, this could have been a great victory for them. Ukraine would get the message that any time they try to bulk up, Russian missiles would take out their purchases and Civillian infratructure. Russia would have gotten its rebel Buffer properly as well.

 

[GermanHerman]

It's insane. If Russia had just launched a limited war with those objectives, it might have been able to meet them and claim a victory of sorts - albeit at the cost of the bulk of Ukraine shifting even closer to NATO and receiving military aid.

But by aiming so high without the necessary preparation this statement is going to be taken by NATO and other countries as an admission of defeat by Russia, especially given the significant losses Russia has sustained.

No doubt about that.

Russia will be left significantly weaker, not just because of how the world perceives its power but also because of depleted BTG's which will take years to build back Up.

But we should not forgett that russia is undoubtly learning from this experience. When and if russia comes to the point of actualy trying something like this again many of the flaws we see now will propably be no factor anymore.

Some historians say that it was the Anschluss of Austria and the Sudetenland that was crucial for later german success because the Wehrmacht gained experience in committing large scale operations and working out failures in their logistics.

In other News, there are conflicting reports from NY Times about kherson:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507419650463703042

Apparently according to Pentagon sources Ukrainian forces are inside the city while others sources deny this.

_If_ that is true it signals an even bigger defeat for russia.

 

[Feanor]

No doubt about that.

Russia will be left significantly weaker, not just because of how the world perceives its power but also because of depleted BTG's which will take years to build back Up.

But we should not forgett that russia is undoubtly learning from this experience. When and if russia comes to the point of actualy trying something like this again many of the flaws we see now will propably be no factor anymore.

Some historians say that it was the Anschluss of Austria and the Sudetenland that was crucial for later german success because the Wehrmacht gained experience in committing large scale operations and working out failures in their logistics.

In other News, there are conflicting reports from NY Times about kherson:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507419650463703042

Apparently according to Pentagon sources Ukrainian forces are inside the city while others sources deny this.

_If_ that is true it signals an even bigger defeat for russia.

I don't have anything, other then recent Ukrainian artillery and rocket-artillery firing at Kherson.

Meanwhile, Russia has released updated casulaty figures. 1352 KIA, 3825 WIA. These numbers seem small and the ratio is odd. I guess it's possible in principle that Russia lost this few troops, again even a destroyed truck or tank doesn't mean the crew died. It would indicate far less fighting, and far lower intensity of clashes then what things have looked like. Even the ratio sort of makes sense, reflecting the potential collapse of CASEVACs that we discussed. So if you squint a bit the numbers aren't implausible...

However I don't think they are correct. I suspect the real casualty figures are 2-3 times higher, simply based on the intensity of the fighting, and the pull for additional manpower. Even at face value, this represents ~3% of committed forces and is not a small number. And so far only one major city is mostly cleared (another taken without a fight).

 

[HelBattery]

I also came across these figures - with the remark that they do not include the losses of the military forces of the "republics". They probably don't include losses of Chechen troops either.

 

[CumbrianRover]

If you are in Russia, please be careful in your posting; you deliver great content and balance, thank you, stay safe.

 

[John Fedup]

Well to be fair, if Canada and New Zealand bordered Russia, they would probably have plenty of reserve extra stockpiles of weapons and munitions too. I can see that several members are frustrated with their nation's inadequacies in this front, but in the post coldwar pax Americana, only the Western nations who faced any threat at all in the last 30 years were the ones close to Russia.
@John Fedup can you really blame the Canadian voter base, until Xi came to power and China went all 'stronk', what threats did Canada face at all, hell even Russia was on friendly-ish terms prior to the 2012. If my country was in the same position as Canada, I would want our defense budget to be low too. Even with rising Chinese military flexing, to the average Canadian what threat does China or even Russia pose, many voters dont want their country to project miitary power abroad and want the military strong enough purely for defesnive purposes.

Going back to Finland, their dangerous geographical proximity, harsh climate, past history of war and small but highly educated and very homogenous population makes them what they are.

Canada has treaty obligations as a member NATO that requires a reasonable investment in defence. Said investment has been piss poor for decades and only with our Afghanistan mission did this trend improve somewhat. Given the current geopolitical environment, 1.3% (probably inflated) is too low.