Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Phead128 said:
Somehow Baltic states entering NATO in 2003 didn't trigger Russia invasion even though NATO troops directly bordered Saint Petersburg region and Kaliningrad oblast, but conveniently, NATO is now a proximate cause to justify a pandemic-distracted opportunistic attempt to subdue Ukraine. I don't really buy it either. The pandemic was a huge factor in the timing of invasion, Putin timed it when West can't afford to intervene given inflation, slow growth, and supply chain issues.


Keep the 8-year long proxy war in DNR/LNR going forever? Engage in reverse color revolution to install your own coup/puppet leader? Engage in psychological operations (psyops) to impact public opinion and elections? I don't see an immediate existential threat that justified razing Ukrainian cities to ashes/rubbles. This appears to be risky gamble to take advantage of Western COVID economic struggles to assert dominance in sphere of influence.
Click to expand...

Russia was flat on its back in the early 2000s, and Putin (Yeltsin's hand-picked successor, where Yeltsin himself was more-or-less Washington's puppet) had also not yet given up on the west entirely at that point. If Russia had the strength to prevent the accession of the Baltic states to NATO, I have no doubt that Moscow would've done it.

As to the immediate precipitating factors, I don't know and have raised this question previously. Unfortunately, the easiest way to make sense of this catastrophe is along the lines of the dominant western narrative: that Putin really did expect to walk in with his tripwire force, topple the government within a few days, and be greeted as liberators by the bulk of the populace.
 
R

redion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Helius said:
Of course the difference between then and now is that the USSR was on a total war footing with the Allies also fighting the same enemy from the west.

Now Russia has to contend with not just Ukraine itself but a potential actual total war scenario with NATO such that she has no choice but to fight hamstrung.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that significant Russian forces and capabilities are being held back against the prospect of NATO intervention. But that doesn't account for everything. Vietnam is only half the size of Ukraine and in 1965 had almost the same population as Ukraine does today. Vietnam was also much more evenly divided between North and South than the Ukraine/DNR/LPR/Crimea split. Yet, despite having to maintain forces elsewhere, American soldiers deployed in Vietnam peaked at over 500,000, coupled with truly indiscriminate bombing campaigns, mass slaughter of civilian populations, etc. And they still lost.

Russia's 200,000 troops for a task of this size is simply woefully inadequate and points to Moscow having expected a very different operation -- indeed, a "special military operation" -- that bears little to no resemblance to the war of attrition that they now find themselves in. At some point very soon Moscow is going to have to choose between backing down and accepting a limited settlement, or escalating to a true war economy that puts millions more men under arms.
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
enroger said:
Joke aside cope cage seems to be working? otherwise they'd have dropped it by now

Man I'd hate to see that thing on ZTZ99
Click to expand...
Well the Chinese better install at least soft kill APS’s on them because that is literally what they would like without those protection systems in a certain scenario whose mention will derail this thread.
 
B

Bill Blazo

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lethe said:
There is no doubt that significant Russian forces and capabilities are being held back against the prospect of NATO intervention. But that doesn't account for everything. Vietnam is only half the size of Ukraine and in 1965 had almost the same population as Ukraine does today. Vietnam was also much more evenly divided between North and South than the Ukraine DNR/LPR/Crimea split. Yet, despite having to maintain forces elsewhere, American soldiers deployed in Vietnam peaked at over 500,000, coupled with truly indiscriminate bombing campaigns, mass slaughter of civilian populations, etc. And they still lost.

Russia's 200,000 troops for a task of this size is simply woefully inadequate and points to Moscow having expected a very different operation -- indeed, a "special military operation" -- that bears little to no resemblance to the war of attrition that they now find themselves in. At some point very soon Moscow is going to have to choose between backing down and accepting a limited settlement, or escalating to a true war economy that puts millions more men under arms.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with this, as long as we're clear about what the "task" actually is right now. If the objective is to seize Donbas and secure the land bridge to Crimea, then the Russians need at most 300,000 troops for that. Honestly even 250,000 or slightly less is totally fine. They're not going to encounter an insurgency in the Donbas at all; unlike in the north, Russian supply convoys have not been ambushed by irregular Ukrainian units in the east. That speaks to the fact that the vast majority of the population in the Donbas will acquiesce to Russian rule, reluctantly or not. So really all they need to do is reinforce and protect their gains in the south. Now, if Russia has more ambitious goals, like taking over all of Ukraine, then they need like at least a million troops. But based on the recent reorientation and regrouping of Russian forces, it really does appear that Russia is going for limited war aims: grab some lands in the south and east, declare victory, move on.
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
MortyandRick said:
I hear this a lot repeated here and by western media. Can any of you posters link evidence to show that the Russian intelligence expected Ukraine to welcome them as liberators? Or that a significant proportion of the Russian population is against Putin abs this war? Or if this a” just trust me bro “ kind of source? Or is this the much vaulted mental gymnastics mentioned above? Certainly it can go both ways.

In that case, I can assure you from my Russian acquaintances, every one of them support this operation and most of the Russian public. And they were very aware of how much hate the Ukrainians had for them
Click to expand...

That's why anecdotal evidence should never be accepted in any discussion. Just an amusing thought; I find it's usually the non STEM trained people who tend to use this sort of argument, it also tends to be the case that non STEM trained people would fall for it....
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
Exactly.

Somehow Baltic states entering NATO in 2003 didn't trigger Russia invasion even though NATO troops directly bordered Saint Petersburg region and Kaliningrad oblast, but conveniently, NATO is now a proximate cause to justify a pandemic-distracted opportunistic attempt to subdue Ukraine. I don't really buy it either. The pandemic was a huge factor in the timing of invasion, Putin timed it when West can't afford to intervene given inflation, slow growth, and supply chain issues.
Click to expand...
Russia was neck deep in Chechnya back then, for the second time around no less. Not to mention it was at a time when Putin just inherited an absolute mess of a failed state that was in actuality near collapse. Russia was in even less shape to deal with external threats back then than in 2014.

Phead128 said:
Keep the 8-year long proxy war in DNR/LNR going forever? Engage in reverse color revolution to install your own coup/puppet leader? Engage in psychological operations (psyops) to impact public opinion and elections? I don't see an immediate existential threat that justified razing Ukrainian cities to ashes/rubbles. This appears to be risky gamble to take advantage of Western COVID economic struggles to assert dominance in sphere of influence.
Click to expand...
13,000 ethnic Russians were already killed in those 8 years, way more than the 8,000 killed in the Bosnian genocide/ethnic cleansing, and look what happened to that country.

How many more would have to be killed to keep the Donbass war "going forever"? As justification for war goes, I could think of much worse, like calling a vial of laundry detergent anthrax, or a bunch of aluminium tubes nuclear fuel rods.
 
L

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ukraine has a compelling incentive not to agree to any *temporary* ceasefire.
The Russian Army is beset by major logistical difficulties. The Russians would take advantage of any ceasefire or lull
in the fighting to strive to resupply their front-line units and consolidate their positions, preparing to resume offensives.

At this time, Russia seems to be focusing its limited logistics upon supporting its forces around Mariupol and in Donbas,
with the rest of its forces assuming the less logistically demanding role of holding their ground.
Ukraine should, if practicable, counterattack Russian forces elsewhere to attempt to divert Russia from focusing upon Mariupol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top