The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[KipPotapych]

At some point I expect there will be peace talks. Sadly for Ukraine those talks will involve ceding territory to the Russians.

The possibility then is that an emboldened Russia will just keep coming back for more.

The war drums are all ready beating in the rest of Europe.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/leaked-report-reveals-germanys-preparations-for-terrifying-war/news-story/ae89572aca8f46b178880fa2af9a052f?amp

If the Ukraine lines of Defence were to ever collapse and Russia were to start advancing across the rest of the Ukraine I honestly don’t know how NATO would respond.

I really do not understand the point of view (in seriousness) that the “more emboldened Russia” will attack another country and a NATO member in particular. There is zero logic in it. Russia (to point out, we are talking about the modern, call it post-Soviet Russia) had never expressed any interest or intent to attack Poland, the Balts, Finland, Romania, you name it. Had it? I mean how can one seriously talk about it even? It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. There are obviously real geopolitical consequences to this current conflict that actually have little to do with Ukraine itself. The need for Europe to invest in their own security is also obvious and I mentioned it several times here. However, preparation for actual physical war with Russia is ludicrous. Not the preparation itself per se, but the actual expressed intent and expectation of many different parties to literally be in war with Russia in the next 3 to 6 (Poles and Balts) and 6 to 8 (Germans) years is quite insane. I am not sure how the electorate sees it there, but any politician seriously talking about the possibility in the foreseeable future must be out of touch with reality, “joking”, or pursuing another agenda, political or otherwise. For the Americans, for example, the agenda of such ridiculous claims (American soldiers will be fighting the Russians when they attack a NATO member next) is pretty clear and that is to convince the population (and the political opponents) of the necessity of providing as much aid to Ukraine as possible, as well justifying the aid already provided, because the American interests are directly affected by the result of this war. Yes, I said political opponents and American interests and it may seem contradictory, but it isn’t. In Europe, and Germany in particular, as another example, this agenda may be, but not limited to, convincing the population that there is a real need to invest into the defense sector and rearm despite of the fairly bleak economic situation that is not looking any better in the foreseeable future; convincing the population and justification of the significant material support is not lost in their case either. Note here that no one still expressed with any sense of clarity what “supporting Ukraine as long as it takes” means (as long as what takes?) and what is an acceptable outcome. The stress is made on the “Ukrainians are fighting our fight so that we do not have to”, which is actually quite disrespectful, in my opinion, and heavily (or completely) diminishes what the Ukrainian soldiers and people overall are doing.

Let’s assume for a second that Russia did intend to attack a NATO state as in “unprovoked aggression”. To what end and for what purpose (I am going to avoid the subject of means entirely in this conversation)? There have been numerous proposals by various individuals, but most seem to agree on either restoration of the Soviet Union (so the Balts are to be incorporated) or the Russian Empire. The latter begs the question of the point in time - that is, are we talking about the 1890’s, at the peak of the Empire, or some other period? At the peak, we are obviously talking about the Baltic States, as well as a good portion of Poland. Well, let’s assume the Russian Empire at its peak is the plan. Let’s then look at the other regions that aren’t members of NATO that were part of the same Empire, in Asia, Europe… Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, all other “stans”, and so on. All are still independent countries, all but one have not been invaded, and all but one are still within their internationally recognized borders. Anyway… It actually feels dumb talking about it.

I will leave a link here to the article written by Mark Galeotti a week or two ago (maybe to show that I am not totally “out of whack”, laughing here, but it is also a pretty good short read):

STOLYPIN: No, World War III is not on the horizon

It has suddenly become unexpectedly and depressingly fashionable to predict the imminence of World War III, and the westward march of Moscow’s grim ...

www.intellinews.com

In regards to the response of NATO to the hypothetical collapse of the Ukrainian lines and Russia moving forward… In my opinion that isn’t worth much, either Russia would stop at the river, perhaps incorporating (or trying to do so) some of the Odessa and Mykolaiv Regions as well, or NATO may send forces to the western Ukraine to basically achieve the same result, perhaps saving Odessa and Mykolaiv. But this scenario is so farfetched that it is probably not even worth discussing.

 

[KipPotapych]

At some point I expect there will be peace talks. Sadly for Ukraine those talks will involve ceding territory to the Russians.

The possibility then is that an emboldened Russia will just keep coming back for more.

The war drums are all ready beating in the rest of Europe.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/leaked-report-reveals-germanys-preparations-for-terrifying-war/news-story/ae89572aca8f46b178880fa2af9a052f?amp

If the Ukraine lines of Defence were to ever collapse and Russia were to start advancing across the rest of the Ukraine I honestly don’t know how NATO would respond.

I really do not understand the point of view (in seriousness) that the “more emboldened Russia” will attack another country and a NATO member in particular. There is zero logic in it. Russia (to point out, we are talking about the modern, call it post-Soviet Russia) had never expressed any interest or intent to attack Poland, the Balts, Finland, Romania, you name it. Had it? I mean how can one seriously talk about it even? It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. There are obviously real geopolitical consequences to this current conflict that actually have little to do with Ukraine itself. The need for Europe to invest in their own security is also obvious and I mentioned it several times here. However, preparation for actual physical war with Russia is ludicrous. Not the preparation itself per se, but the actual expressed intent and expectation of many different parties to literally be in war with Russia in the next 3 to 6 (Poles and Balts) and 6 to 8 (Germans) years is quite insane. I am not sure how the electorate sees it there, but any politician seriously talking about the possibility in the foreseeable future must be out of touch with reality, “joking”, or pursuing another agenda, political or otherwise. For the Americans, for example, the agenda of such ridiculous claims (American soldiers will be fighting the Russians when they attack a NATO member next) is pretty clear and that is to convince the population (and the political opponents) of the necessity of providing as much aid to Ukraine as possible, as well justifying the aid already provided, because the American interests are directly affected by the result of this war. Yes, I said political opponents and American interests and it may seem contradictory, but it isn’t. In Europe, and Germany in particular, as another example, this agenda may be, but not limited to, convincing the population that there is a real need to invest into the defense sector and rearm despite of the fairly bleak economic situation that is not looking any better in the foreseeable future; convincing the population and justification of the significant material support is not lost in their case either. Note here that no one still expressed with any sense of clarity what “supporting Ukraine as long as it takes” means (as long as what takes?) and what is an acceptable outcome. The stress is made on the “Ukrainians are fighting our fight so that we do not have to”, which is actually quite disrespectful, in my opinion, and heavily (or completely) diminishes what the Ukrainian soldiers and people overall are doing.

Let’s assume for a second that Russia did intend to attack a NATO state as in “unprovoked aggression”. To what end and for what purpose (I am going to avoid the subject of means entirely in this conversation)? There have been numerous proposals by various individuals, but most seem to agree on either restoration of the Soviet Union (so the Balts are to be incorporated) or the Russian Empire. The latter begs the question of the point in time - that is, are we talking about the 1890’s, at the peak of the Empire, or some other period? At the peak, we are obviously talking about the Baltic States, as well as a good portion of Poland. Well, let’s assume the Russian Empire at its peak is the plan. Let’s then look at the other regions that aren’t members of NATO that were part of the same Empire, in Asia, Europe… Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, all other “stans”, and so on. All are still independent countries, all but one have not been invaded, and all but one are still within their internationally recognized borders. Anyway… It actually feels dumb talking about it.

I will leave a link here to the article written by Mark Galeotti a week or two ago (maybe to show that I am not totally “out of whack”, laughing here, but it is also a pretty good short read):

STOLYPIN: No, World War III is not on the horizon

It has suddenly become unexpectedly and depressingly fashionable to predict the imminence of World War III, and the westward march of Moscow’s grim ...

www.intellinews.com

In regards to the response of NATO to the hypothetical collapse of the Ukrainian lines and Russia moving forward… In my opinion that isn’t worth much, either Russia would stop at the river, perhaps incorporating (or trying to do so) some of the Odessa and Mykolaiv Regions as well, or NATO may send forces to the western Ukraine to basically achieve the same result, perhaps saving Odessa and Mykolaiv. But this scenario is so farfetched that it is probably not even worth discussing.

Edit: Hauritz, this post was not directed at you, by the way, rather the points you brought up and the overall political messaging that seems to be prevalent at the moment.

 

[Redshift]

I really do not understand the point of view (in seriousness) that the “more emboldened Russia” will attack another country and a NATO member in particular. There is zero logic in it. Russia (to point out, we are talking about the modern, call it post-Soviet Russia) had never expressed any interest or intent to attack Poland, the Balts, Finland, Romania, you name it. Had it? I mean how can one seriously talk about it even? It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. There are obviously real geopolitical consequences to this current conflict that actually have little to do with Ukraine itself. The need for Europe to invest in their own security is also obvious and I mentioned it several times here. However, preparation for actual physical war with Russia is ludicrous. Not the preparation itself per se, but the actual expressed intent and expectation of many different parties to literally be in war with Russia in the next 3 to 6 (Poles and Balts) and 6 to 8 (Germans) years is quite insane. I am not sure how the electorate sees it there, but any politician seriously talking about the possibility in the foreseeable future must be out of touch with reality, “joking”, or pursuing another agenda, political or otherwise. For the Americans, for example, the agenda of such ridiculous claims (American soldiers will be fighting the Russians when they attack a NATO member next) is pretty clear and that is to convince the population (and the political opponents) of the necessity of providing as much aid to Ukraine as possible, as well justifying the aid already provided, because the American interests are directly affected by the result of this war. Yes, I said political opponents and American interests and it may seem contradictory, but it isn’t. In Europe, and Germany in particular, as another example, this agenda may be, but not limited to, convincing the population that there is a real need to invest into the defense sector and rearm despite of the fairly bleak economic situation that is not looking any better in the foreseeable future; convincing the population and justification of the significant material support is not lost in their case either. Note here that no one still expressed with any sense of clarity what “supporting Ukraine as long as it takes” means (as long as what takes?) and what is an acceptable outcome. The stress is made on the “Ukrainians are fighting our fight so that we do not have to”, which is actually quite disrespectful, in my opinion, and heavily (or completely) diminishes what the Ukrainian soldiers and people overall are doing.

Let’s assume for a second that Russia did intend to attack a NATO state as in “unprovoked aggression”. To what end and for what purpose (I am going to avoid the subject of means entirely in this conversation)? There have been numerous proposals by various individuals, but most seem to agree on either restoration of the Soviet Union (so the Balts are to be incorporated) or the Russian Empire. The latter begs the question of the point in time - that is, are we talking about the 1890’s, at the peak of the Empire, or some other period? At the peak, we are obviously talking about the Baltic States, as well as a good portion of Poland. Well, let’s assume the Russian Empire at its peak is the plan. Let’s then look at the other regions that aren’t members of NATO that were part of the same Empire, in Asia, Europe… Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, all other “stans”, and so on. All are still independent countries, all but one have not been invaded, and all but one are still within their internationally recognized borders. Anyway… It actually feels dumb talking about it.

I will leave a link here to the article written by Mark Galeotti a week or two ago (maybe to show that I am not totally “out of whack”, laughing here, but it is also a pretty good short read):

STOLYPIN: No, World War III is not on the horizon

It has suddenly become unexpectedly and depressingly fashionable to predict the imminence of World War III, and the westward march of Moscow’s grim ...

www.intellinews.com

In regards to the response of NATO to the hypothetical collapse of the Ukrainian lines and Russia moving forward… In my opinion that isn’t worth much, either Russia would stop at the river, perhaps incorporating (or trying to do so) some of the Odessa and Mykolaiv Regions as well, or NATO may send forces to the western Ukraine to basically achieve the same result, perhaps saving Odessa and Mykolaiv. But this scenario is so farfetched that it is probably not even worth discussing.

Edit: Hauritz, this post was not directed at you, by the way, rather the points you brought up and the overall political messaging that seems to be prevalent at the moment.

Many would say that the Russians invaded Ukraine for no logical reason.

Ukraine had no NATO troops, was not part of NATO and represented no threat to the physical integrity of Russia, Ukraine had no western armements before the invasion and very few plans to obtain any.

There were, and are no, NATO biological weapons facilities in Ukraine (or underground NATO bunkers full of NATO generals). No NATO weapons or missile were stationed in Ukraine.

A huge number of Russian "reasons" for invading Russia make absolutely no logic to Europeans.

There is no, and never was any, intent by NATO or Europe or the EU to physically invade Russia, or threaten it in any physical way whatsoever.

Russian reasons (those given) for invading Ukraine apply equally well to several other neighbouring States (Ethnic Russians, Russian speakers, NATO troops(obviously for real in actual NATO countries). "Natzis", there are Natzis everywhere including Russia and the USA, for some reason Natzi ideology appeals to people the world over and pockets exist almost every where).

Very little of this entire situation is about logic.

The other nations that you mentioned have not been invaded primarily because they aligned themselves in general terms With Russia and so far have avoided forcible alliance.

I really can't believe that Russia will attack a NATO country, and that if course is why Finland and Sweden joined NATO, so Russia is entirely to blame for bringing NATO closer to itself as neither country showed any desire to join before.

Laugh at the situation all that you like, personally I don't find anything funny about the current circumstances, Europe was happy disarming , and thus, removing even the remotest threat to Russia, Much of Europe was utterly uninterested in Russia as a threat (despite constant talk by Putin of nuclear armed torpedoes roaming the world to strike at port cities, of new MIRV Armed intercontinental ballistic missiles to wipe out entire countries in one strike, of vast numbers of T14 Armata super tanks, nuclear powered and armed cruise missiles with nigh on infinite range, Hyperdonic missiles yo exterminate enemy forces, hypersonic glide weapons to bomb cities , unstoppable Russian capabilities that, quite frankly, were nothing to do with the defence of tje homeland, Russia already hav the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, it didn't need anything more for deterrence purposes, but the announcements kept on coming over and over again about how Russia could devastate anywhere on the planet and many other super weapons that made him sound like some incarnation of Dr Evil.

 

[Vivendi]

I can absolutely imagine scenarios in which Russia will attack NATO countries, in particular the Baltics, but also several other NATO countries. Russian leaders clearly desire their empire back. An attack on selected NATO countries could easily happen if e.g., the US becomes embroiled in conflicts elsewhere, in particular in the ME and at the same time in SEA. The ME is already at the brink of exploding and many observers believe that there is a 50% chance that China could go for Taiwan within the next 2-3 years. Europe has to prepare for the worst.

Russian leaders (e.g. Medved) are already referring to Poland as "the enemy" and should "lose their statehood". Putin ally warns 'enemy' Poland: you risk losing your statehood | Reuters

Russia is also creating conditions to prepare for invasion of the Baltics: Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 16, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

Putin claimed on January 16 that Latvia and other Baltic states are “throwing [ethnic] Russian people” out of their countries and that this situation “directly affects [Russia’s] security.”[10] Previous changes to Latvia’s immigration law stipulated that Russian citizens’ permanent residence permits would become invalid in September 2023 and that Russian citizens would need to follow the general procedure for obtaining EU permanent residence status in Latvia, including passing a Latvian language exam, by November 30, 2023.[11] The Latvian Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs stated in December 2023 that Latvia would deport about 1,200 Russian citizens who failed to apply for a new residence permit by the deadline.[12] Putin has long employed an expansive definition of Russia’s sovereignty and trivialized the sovereignty of former Soviet republics, and Russia has long claimed that it has the right to protect its “compatriots abroad,” including ethnic Russians and Russian speakers beyond Russia’s borders.[13] ISW has not observed any indication that a Russian attack against the Baltics is imminent or likely, but Putin may be setting information conditions for future aggressive Russian actions abroad under the pretext of protecting its “compatriots.” Putin recently threatened Finland in mid-December 2023 and reiterated a world view illustrating that he continues to pursue demanded changes to the NATO alliance that would amount to dismantling it.

Russia is also actively manipulating history, for instance by accusing Nazi Germany of the Katyn massacre (even if Russia some 20 years ago admitted the USSR was responsible for the massacre) Russia rewrites the history of 22,000 Poles murdered by Soviet forces during World War II | International | EL PAÍS English (elpais.com).

THen we have all the cyberattacks on Western Countries in particular European; disinformation campaigns aiming at weaking NATO, weakening EU and weaking democracy in both EU and the US. Spain Judge Extends Probe Into Catalan Separatist's 'Russia Ties' | Barron's (barrons.com)

Things like this should make Europeans nervous, and increase defense budgets. The world is currently very unstable, and the main drivers of this instability are Russia, Iran, China and NK. They all clearly want a "new world order" that benefits dictatorships and autocratic leaders. The West should prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[Vivendi]

It seems Ukraine has sunk a Russian Tarantul class corvette yesterday near Crimea, using maritime drones.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1753025542155092067

There are also reports about other drone attacks on Crimea, after successful drone attacks on radar installations and an S-300 installation in Crimea:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752707578969432485

 

[Vivendi]

Great news: The EU countries have now approved the EUR 50 billion aid package to Ukraine, to be transferred during the next 4 years. Ukraine support package worth €50bn agreed by EU leaders - BBC News

Hopefully the US will soon also commit additional aid packages to Ukraine.

 

[Feanor]

It seems Ukraine has sunk a Russian Tarantul class corvette yesterday near Crimea, using maritime drones.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1753025542155092067

There are also reports about other drone attacks on Crimea, after successful drone attacks on radar installations and an S-300 installation in Crimea:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752707578969432485

Russian sources confirm the loss of the small missile boat but not the attacks on the radar or S-300 at least so far. Let's see if more information emerges.

Colonelcassad

Черноморский флот во время ночной атаки дронов в районе Донузлава потерял МРК "Ивановец" (1989 года постройки, 493 тонны водоизмещения, вооружен ракетами "Москит").

t.me

EDIT: Video of the attack.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

 

[vikingatespam]

I can imagine a scenario, when, in the near future, an enlarged RU army, fresh from stomping UKR (I have no indication this will happen soon, but we are considering scenarios) moves into Transnistria (already MOscow aligned) and then Moldova (virtually helpless). Beyond that, Putin could try some brinkmanship by daring to go after Estonia, thinking that no one in NATO will fight for such a small country.

Putin has lamented the breakup of the Soviet Union, and it would appear he pines for the "good old days". Other political RU figures openly call for further expansion (Medvedev).

While this is all worst case planning, I think its time to consider the possibility.

 

[Feanor]

I can imagine a scenario, when, in the near future, an enlarged RU army, fresh from stomping UKR (I have no indication this will happen soon, but we are considering scenarios) moves into Transnistria (already MOscow aligned) and then Moldova (virtually helpless). Beyond that, Putin could try some brinkmanship by daring to go after Estonia, thinking that no one in NATO will fight for such a small country.

Putin has lamented the breakup of the Soviet Union, and it would appear he pines for the "good old days". Other political RU figures openly call for further expansion (Medvedev).

While this is all worst case planning, I think its time to consider the possibility.

Wouldn't dealing with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan be a higher priority? Turkey is moving into Russia's back yard there. Then there's Central Asia, a whole can of worms there. These are all less riskier targets for Russian expansion, and arguably securing a large country like Kazakhstan is far more important.

 

[vikingatespam]

Wouldn't dealing with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan be a higher priority? Turkey is moving into Russia's back yard there. Then there's Central Asia, a whole can of worms there. These are all less riskier targets for Russian expansion, and arguably securing a large country like Kazakhstan is far more important.

Im just guess worst case possibilities. I would think Central Asia would piss off China (and Khazakhstan is a massive sanctions busting sieve), and Turkey is a valuable trading partner. If Europe is hostile, why not scoop up Transnistria and Moldova.

Its a dumb long term idea anyway, but it didnt stop the Soviets.

 

[Feanor]

Im just guess worst case possibilities. I would think Central Asia would piss off China (and Khazakhstan is a massive sanctions busting sieve), and Turkey is a valuable trading partner. If Europe is hostile, why not scoop up Transnistria and Moldova.

Direct invasion is one thing, tighter integration is another. There are many complex overlapping issues here. To be able to scoop up Transnestria Russia would have to have done far more then just defeat Ukraine. It would have to have taken Nikolaev and Odessa, probably Krivoy Rog too for good measure. None of this is remotely plausible. Right now if Russia were to push Ukraine out of the Donetsk region entirely this would be lauded (rightly so) as a major Russian success. Yet this wouldn't bring them one inch closer to taking Transnestria. The military reality is that as long as Ukraine can keep fighting, Russia can take the village of Krahmal'noe and Tabaevka, and push on the villages of Peshanoe and Berestovoe. Russia can even hope to retake Kupyansk, or take Seversk. But something like Khar'kov isn't a realistic prospect, and Zaporozhye is a non-starter.

Its a dumb long term idea anyway, but it didnt stop the Soviets.

It wasn't a dumb idea for the Soviets. It's a dumb idea for Russia. Different countries, different societies, different historic time period.

 

[vikingatespam]

Direct invasion is one thing, tighter integration is another. There are many complex overlapping issues here. To be able to scoop up Transnestria Russia would have to have done far more then just defeat Ukraine. It would have to have taken Nikolaev and Odessa, probably Krivoy Rog too for good measure. None of this is remotely plausible. Right now if Russia were to push Ukraine out of the Donetsk region entirely this would be lauded (rightly so) as a major Russian success. Yet this wouldn't bring them one inch closer to taking Transnestria. The military reality is that as long as Ukraine can keep fighting, Russia can take the village of Krahmal'noe and Tabaevka, and push on the villages of Peshanoe and Berestovoe. Russia can even hope to retake Kupyansk, or take Seversk. But something like Khar'kov isn't a realistic prospect, and Zaporozhye is a non-starter.

These are all worst-case scenarios assuming UKR collapses relatively soon.

It wasn't a dumb idea for the Soviets. It's a dumb idea for Russia. Different countries, different societies, different historic time period.

It was dumb in the long term for the Soviets as it was done at gun-point and resulted in so many of these former RU states to hate RU enough to cause them to join NATO years later. Even if RU manages to completely take over UKR there will likely be some level of insurgency. Another gnawing wound that wont heal.

 

[Feanor]

It was dumb in the long term for the Soviets as it was done at gun-point and resulted in so many of these former RU states to hate RU enough to cause them to join NATO years later.

To be clear, the Soviet Union was a project of spreading Marxist-Leninst communism world wide. A conflict with the west was the raison d'etre of the Soviet Union's existence. Everything else was preparation for this. In that context, it makes no sense to not take countries if you can take them. The end result was supposed to be a global Union of Soviet Republics.

Even if RU manages to completely take over UKR there will likely be some level of insurgency. Another gnawing wound that wont heal.

But they won't manage to take over the Ukraine, and the parts they are taking don't have much population and a substantial portion of the population is Russian. Moreover with the level of fighting in many areas the territory they're taking over is basically empty. It doesn't matter if the population of Artemovsk/Bakhmut is pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian if there's basically no population left. When Russia takes Avdeevka, do you think there will be a resistance movement?

 

[vikingatespam]

When Russia takes Avdeevka, do you think there will be a resistance movement?

There wont be anything in Adivka for some time. Ruined buildings, shattered lives, and UXO.

 

[seaspear]

Another dumb /interesting idea might be for Ukraine to take on those Russian deployments in Transnistria to aid /slash liberate Russian munitions there

 

[Fredled]

I really do not understand the point of view (in seriousness) that the “more emboldened Russia” will attack another country and a NATO member in particular.

To understand why, you should ask the question: Why does Rusia wants to invade the DonBas so bad? Why doe Russia want to keep control over Ukraine. When you look at the map of Russia and compare it to the size of the DonBas, you understand immediately how insane it is. Russia doesn't need the DonBas or Ukraine neither for economic nor for defensive reason. Russian natural ressources are nore than immense. It really doesn't need more territory. But less than 10% is exploited. So they are interested in directly exploitable resources. It's just plain insane. the only reason is greed for more coal, more gaz, more wheat, more power, more naval bases and personal glory.

So, if they do that with Ukraine, why wouldn't they do the same with other countries? They will if they are given a chance. This feeling is very strong in eastern Europe and in the Baltics in particular. Balts and Poles are next to Russia. And Russia is currently using its entire military power to crush a neughbouring country. They have reasons to worry.

Why isnt't Russia already invading (or re-invading to be more exact) former asian USSR states? They did. Tchetchenia, Georgia and Nagorno Kharabak. Ok, so why they didn't take over Azerbiadjan, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan? Because these countries are too big. Russians know that they don't have a chance there. With smaller countries they do.

They had to know it about Ukraine. it's a big country too. But they thought that the Ukrainian population was still largely pro-Russian. They do this mistake because they assume that every ethnic Russian will support Putin and worship him as the liberator of the Russian Nation. He does the same mistake with the Baltic states. They are convinced that because statsitically 20% of the Baltic population speaks Russian, 20% of the population wish to live under the Russian oligarchic regime (while in reality it's near zero). This belief is yet one more incentive to invade.

That's why the Baltic states will be next. With Poland and other east European countries, it's less plausible. But long term, you never know what they can do. So you better be prepared. And keep the parasite away while it's still time.

Putin said that he doesn't wish the return of the Soviet Union. The reason is not that he doesn't wish to acquire more territories. The reason is that the Soviet Union is, by definition, an union of independent states. In USSR, the states where independent in theory and legally. Their borders were the same as the borders actually recognised. Putin wants to conquer land to annex it to Russia. He is not interested in a union. At some times he hoped that Belarus will join Russia but that project was aborted. But when he invades by force, annexation follows a few months later.

 

[Fredled]

It wasn't a dumb idea for the Soviets. It's a dumb idea for Russia. Different countries, different societies, different historic time period.

It was not dumb for the Soviets and on top of that it was a piece of cake for them. They just took eastern Europe as the Germans retreated. They never really had to invade. Just put pro-soviet governments in place.
As I said in my previous port, Putin is interested in annexing new territories. Expanding the Life Room (or Lebensraum) of the Russian Nation. He is not interested in yet one more union of nation-states.

 

[Fredled]

Another dumb /interesting idea might be for Ukraine to take on those Russian deployments in Transnistria to aid /slash liberate Russian munitions there

It's very interesting indeed. The Russian contingent there is now encircled and it's only a matter of time that they will surrender unless Russians completes the land corridor which is unlikely at the moment.
So far the Moldav government lived with it. But now they see prospect in recovering Transnistria in the event of an Ukrainian victory (which is not taken for granted at the moment). Everybody is waiting for the situation to be ripe.

 

[Fredled]

Russian leaders (e.g. Medved) are already referring to Poland as "the enemy" and should "lose their statehood".

When the clown Zhirinovsky said the very same things, everybody was laughing. Now that it's Medvediev, former President and several time prime minister of Russia, it's not humour anymore. We can't ignore what these psychos are saying.

 

[Fredled]

would speculate (in fact, I am pretty sure in this speculation of mine) that the likelihood of being exposed or caught walking the distance and sleeping in forests for 20 to 30 nights is significantly higher than any other means of transportation, such as getting a vehicle and driving that distance in one to three days (or (much) longer if necessary), sleeping in reasonable conditions in some flat, etc.

I also know quite a few people in Russia, people who travel within the country for business and outside of it for business and pleasure, some ex-military, still within the age group you are referring to. There are no checks every time you board a public transit, or any special autorisations, etc. Not much had actually changed in this regard. I am not sure what the source of your information is (perhaps like mine in this post, ie people we know), but I can attest that they do not live in the “gestapo” type environment. They are free to pack up and leave any time they want, really.

I have obviously other sources than yours. And I will not describe my sources for safety reasons. But I can tell you that there are checks in public transportations and on roads. Maybe not every time you board a vehicle but certainly when you are crossing a certain distance, or certain administrative delimitations.

Men of mobilisation age can't go where they want. They have a card with a letter showing their mobilisation category: whether they will be in the next mobilisation wave or after the next one and so on. And they do need an authorisation to travel large distances within Russia and they can't leave Russia in any circumstances. They, and their wives also have limitations for selling real estate if they own some.

Now, it's true that not everybody is affected. And those unaffected are not aware of this. It's not like they control everybody all the time.

I don't know how these rules are enforced in reality. And what are the penalties. But taking a vehicle and driving it over 600km is quiet risky if you are an Ukrainian saboteur. Taking a train or a bus, even more. It's hard to imagine how Ukrainians infiltrators could rent or secure an accommodation for 20 nights in different places along the road, for several men, without being noticed and being 100% sure they won't be tipped off.