Ukrainian War Developments

gelgoog · Mar 27, 2022

Botnet said:
The only reason heavy weaponry isn't flowing into Ukraine is because both sides have agreed not to escalate this any further which is why the US has only been sending in MANPADS and such, and balked at the MiG deal. But if Putin started carpet-bombing cities, NATO would be hard pressed not to escalate in turn, and such floodgates will be opened.

Sending equipment the Ukrainians can't learn how to use in time is useless. And sending leading edge equipment which the Russians might capture and reverse engineer is also kind of dangerous.

Phead128 said:
You know NATO charter forbids membership to nations engaged in any war (e.g., Russo-Ukrainian war including Crimea and 8-year proxy war). Just by sitting on DNR/LNR indefinitely with Russian peacekeepers, you can defacto prevent NATO membership without seeking a dejure legally-binding treaty to cement neutrality. When NATO and Ukraine refused a legally-binding treaty, Putin gambled on a blitzkrieg to surround the capital hoping it would sue for peace, and sign a treaty. Given the economic costs involved, why not do regime change or atleast annex bigger territory.

The US keeps bending the rules. I do not think Russia trusts them one iota. I doubt Russia will give the existing Ukrainian government any of the territories they take back. They might call it Ukraine, and it might even have the same flag, but it won't be that government in power. At least not without really close supervision.

pmc said:
you made this statement several time of economic costs. Is there quantifiable number?.
The things that Russia exporting especially to Europe on long term contacts have now risen 10X in price and that exclude Turkey.
current account surplus estimate for feb which is usually much smaller number than trade surplus. you are looking at country whose Trade surplus may well reach closer to China. when there is this scale of money relative to population. there is no need for private investments. than there is that 4D chess in Middleast. i am sure Russia has share in that wealth creation.

It does not matter. Between the SWIFT cut, the sanctions on certain products, and the major shipping companies doing a boycott on Russia, and the EU countries blocking Russian ships in certain harbours in Europe. I think the money is kind of pointless. Paper IOUs you can never cash in. It will only be usable to pay back debts to the West when they already confiscated enough Russian money to cover the debts basically. I think Russia should just cut sales to them unless they start behaving responsibly. Fuck em.

Phead128 said:
Thoughts on this article? Seems extreme if true... ouch.

Putin’s War to Wipe Out 15 Years of Russian Economic Growth

Bloomberg... Remains to be seen. They also said the ruble would hit 200:1. It is currently at 99:1 after temporarily hitting 150:1. Also given the West do not want to sell Russia anything in exchange for the goods the Russians provide, the exchange rate to their currency is kind of pointless anyway, since it cannot buy anything. GDP in USD is a crapshoot as well. With the sanctions the Russian economy does not have a fully convertible currency in real terms in the first place.

Abominable said:
If Azerbaijan launches a full scale attack on Karabakh it will be difficult for Russia to defend it. The 2020 was short but very bloody, however civilians were mostly spared. Azerbaijan taking Stepankert would be a humanitarian disaster. This is definitely not something Russia wanted to see. Worst case scenario it finds itself fighting a two front war with Azerbaijan and possibly Turkey.
Western attitudes were largely pro-Armenian in that conflict, I wonder how they will see the situation now.

Abominable said:
The problem with that is that Azerbaijan will have no problem escalating it up all the way to full blown war with Russia. They know they will have NATO backing now.
It's very likely the Armenians will be on their own on this one unfortunately.

The West's attitude will just be whatever suits them. Just like in Yugoslavia when they supported Bosnian Muslims funded by Al-Qaeda against Christians.
The Russians won't allow them to enter Armenia. But Karabakh is more or less fair game. However if Azerbaijan tries to cut the corridor of access from Armenia to Iran to get a direct link to Turkey. I think the Iranians might start raining missiles on them. They already warned them at least once. Iran is not interested in an Azeri cancer on its border when it has Azeris inside its borders as well. Iran is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country. It is more of an empire like Russia than a nation state. The Azeris might just get clobbered by the Iranians like the Kurds get clobbered by the Turks. If you think the West is close to deep shit in terms of energy you will see what will happen if that conflict blows up. The EU is counting on Azeri gas via TAPI to supply them. As is Turkey. Bulgaria announced they will not renew the contract with Russia once it expires this year because they will get Azeri gas. If Azerbaijan gets into a massive war, then Bulgaria will have to run to Russia to sign a gas contract. If Iran enters the conflict, the JCPOA might collapse, and the US and Europe can kiss Iranian oil to cover for Russian oil goodbye. At the same time Iran will continue to send missiles to the Houtis so they can blow up Saudi oil infrastructure.

Lapin said:
Russia's war on Ukraine fails to satisfy the criteria for a 'just war' in any moral philosophical tradition of which I know.
But the Russian Orthodox Church's leaders are Putin's accomplices in Russia's wars.
Some Russian Orthodox priests disagree and have started to break away.

Ah. But you see the Ukrainian Orthodox church split from the Moscow Orthodox church via a schism. The current Ukrainian regime did this under Poroshenko. The Ukrainians basically created a state church and took churches out from the Moscow Patriarchate. For the Moscow Patriarchate this might as well be a holy war for their believers. So of course they will sponsor it wholeheartedly. The priests will probably even bless the troops on the field as they take cities.

redion said:
The death of a tank Ukranian style !!! This is now become a more complete endevor. It's seams that is no more the case of the heroic Ukranian farmer now we sea Ukranian army engineers streeps wat is useful to capture Russian tanks in organizing fashion

Oh. Nice. A T-72B. Yawn. The Russians have a bazillion of those. They even gave twenty to Laos in exchange for their old T-34s. Yep.
The T-34s were excellently preserved and were later used in military parades and displayed all over Russia.

Helius · Mar 27, 2022

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.

True, and likewise for the Soviets in Afghanistan and we all know how that turned out.

But then again, like with any war and crisis, context is key. This isn't just some proxy war (even though it can be considered as one) where great powers vie for geopolitical bargains or influence. If you believe Putin's spiel, to Russia this is life and death for her as a nation and as a people.

Putin can't fully commit on Ukraine because the beast behind it is waiting at the ready to pounce at the bear the first chance it sees. But it doesn't mean he isn't resolved to make well sure Ukraine ceases to be a threat for all time.

In fact Putin has much greater resolve to achieve just that. The existential threat to Russia isn't just Ukraine but the entire West. That's why the troops are playing it cool and slow, precisely because they're severely handicapped and precisely because the objective is clear - the complete capitulation of the AFU as a fighting force one way or another. And the need to preserve and best utilise the fighting asset that they have is key to ensure that outcome.

semiconprof · Mar 27, 2022

Atomicfrog said:
They are doing thing Russian style... a disorganized, couldn't-care-less attitude with some loose ends but still getting the job done...

They would have three times the lost because of that.

A good example of the Russian style is the drama filled launch of Nauka to ISS last year. Many embarrassing issues were discovered during the pre-launch preparation. And it only got worse after it was launch into space. First it lost telemetry and had issues with the main propulsion system. For a while it had trouble with the docking routine. Even after successful docking, its thrusters misfired and made the space station spinning out of position. The entire launch was a fiasco from the beginning to the end. But at the end of the day, Nauka still made to its destiny and everything went back to normal on ISS. The Russians got the job done because for everything they did wrong, they also did a lot things right. But they really like to play with the fire and get burned from time to time, which is why the Russians never had a successful Martian landing despite multiple attempts, for example.

The same thing applies to this war as well. Russia's preparation and execution was sloppy as hell but I do believe they have a sound strategy and they are a very resilient people. Remember, for everything they did wrong, they also did a lot of things right. And Ukraine is helping Russia by doing lots of wrong things themselves. So despite all the fiascos, I still think Russia has a good chance of (limping to) winning this war.

But it really sucks to be a Russian solider.

Weaasel · Mar 27, 2022

Phead128 said:
In Putin's infamous speech before invasion, half the speech was anti-NATO provocation, the other half was 'blood and soil' rhetoric and Ukraine didn't have a right to exist. That can be construed as eliminating Ukraine right to statehood or at very least regime change.

It's stupid to not perform regime change and install a pro-Kremlin leader after all the economic sanctions Russia endured. Or at least take half of Ukraine as a puppet or vassal. The capital is literally surrounded, go big or go home. None of this paper treaty promise of neutrality.

It's the equivalent of PLA surround Taipei and then demand a paper treaty to not declare independence or ally with US. Come on .... End the regime forever.

Unless Russia gets some territory/vassal/puppet out of this war, none of it is worth the economic sanctions applied to Russian economy. Imagine surrounding the capital and just settling for DNR/LNR. Total loss. Even a paper neutrality treaty needs potential Russia re-incursion to enforce the provisions of de-militarization or monitor it's progress of non-violation, so Russian troops has to be there continually, it's not like a Russia packs up and Ukraine is guai guai for thousand years.

Same. Kinda shocked this is a slogfest and 13th century style siege warfare against cities. Imagine surrounding a capital just to settle for a neutrality treaty. Usually people surround capitals for quick negotiated settlements OR for regime change. They lack troops for the latter and given the economic costs so far, I don't think a paper promise was worth all this effort. Russia needs some territory/vassal/puppet to make all this effort and cost worthwhile, not some paper promise.

So you believe that if Ukraine formally agrees to neutrality, it will at just at some later point suddenly decide not to be neutral and it will be welcomed with open arms into NATO? Do you think that all NATO countries will be pleased with this needless provocation by Ukraine? I am sure that you are aware that it takes unanimous agreement of all NATO members for Ukraine to join NATO.

Your Taiwan analogy is wrong, because Russia formally recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign independent nation, even though it does not respect its territorial integrity.

Lapin · Mar 27, 2022

enroger said:
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....

It's impracticable to conduct anything close to an objective survey of public opinion in Russia today, where even
mentioning that there's a war rather than a 'special military operation' is a criminal offense.

No one claimed that 'anecdotal evidence' is a complete substitute for a scientific survey, but it's not necessarily worthless.
For instance, in 1945 Berlin, a young woman heard that 14 out of the 16 other women in her apartment building were
raped by Soviet soldiers within a few days of their arrival. Should she have dismissed it as mere 'anecdotal evidence'?
Instead, she attempted to do her utmost to avoid contact with Soviet soldiers.

Market researchers routinely use focus groups, which could be regarded as supplying a form of 'anecdotal evidence'.
For instance, in the 2001 film 'Kiss of the Dragon', a scene reportedly was shot where Jet Li (the hero) kissed Bridget Fonda
(the heroine) after he had saved her life. American focus groups had an overwhelmingly negative response to seeing a
white actress being kissed by a Chinese actor, so that scene was deleted in the final cut.

Contrary to stereotyping, I was one of the top students in mathematics in my country, which has a strong tradition.

Weaasel · Mar 27, 2022

Lapin said:
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.

Any major outright sustained offensive by Ukraine requires much manoeuvre in vehicles. Russia has been targeting major fuel depots by Ukraine to limit the capability for the Ukrainians to do that. Overcoming entrenched defensive Russian positions will likely require much air power and artillery. Russia has domination of that. I said domination, I did not say air control, and certainly not complete air control. That aerial domination by Russia risks major vehicular movements by Ukraine being subjected to massive losses. Unlike Russia, Ukraine cannot afford to have a SEPTILLION light-year long convoy parked around for two weeks without worrying about its annihlation. Doing so is the best way for Russia to win the war within days...

enroger · Mar 27, 2022

Lapin said:
It's impracticable to conduct anything close to an objective survey of public opinion in Russia today, where even
mentioning that there's a war rather than a 'special military operation' is a criminal offense.

If you like some anecdotal evidence I've skimmed through some Russian Forums with the help of google translate and found most Russians seems to be for it with some of them worrying about the economy due to sanction. Of course maybe they're all forced by FSB at gun point to type on their keyboard, I won't know....

Lapin said:
No one claimed that 'anecdotal evidence' is a complete substitute for a scientific survey, but it's not necessarily worthless.
For instance, in 1945 Berlin, a young woman heard that 14 out of the 16 other women in her apartment building were
raped by Soviet soldiers within a few days of their arrival. Should she have dismissed it as mere 'anecdotal evidence'?
Instead, she attempted to do her utmost to avoid contact with Soviet soldiers.

Market researchers routinely use focus groups, which could be regarded as supplying a form of 'anecdotal evidence'.
For instance, in the 2001 film 'Kiss of the Dragon', a scene reportedly was shot where Jet Li (the hero) kissed Bridget Fonda
(the heroine) after he had saved her life. American focus groups had an overwhelmingly negative response to seeing a
white actress being kissed by a Chinese actor, so that scene was deleted in the final cut.

So to prove the validity of anecdotal evidence, you gave me two more anecdotal evidences?

Lapin said:
Contrary to stereotyping, I was one of the top students in mathematics in my country, which has a strong tradition.

Good for you I guess, so some STEM trained people does fall for anecdotal evidences? So much for my anecdotal observation...

Helius · Mar 27, 2022

gelgoog said:
[snip]

Ah. But you see the Ukrainian Orthodox church split from the Moscow Orthodox church via a schism. The current Ukrainian regime did this under Poroshenko. The Ukrainians basically created a state church and took churches out from the Moscow Patriarchate. For the Moscow Patriarchate this might as well be a holy war for their believers. So of course they will sponsor it wholeheartedly. The priests will probably even bless the troops on the field as they take cities.

[snip]

Funny you should mention it -

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507363561101742083

lapain · Mar 27, 2022

Phead128 said:
Correction: Majority of sanctions we're after the bombs started flying over most Ukrainian cities, which occured few days after DNR/LNR independence.

After Russia sent peacekeepers to DNR/LNR, US restricted all US trade and investment into DNR/LNR, but did not extend significant sanctions yet to Russia proper. It withheld majority of sanctions to have a full hand to play if and when Russia expanded the war further into Ukraine.

The US were looking at pretextes for sanctions. Even if Russia had simply brought in peacekeepers and what not, the result would have been the same. Worse if the reports of Ukrainian offensive in the Donbass were right as it would have caught the Russian forces off guard with Russia forcing to retort at disadvantage.

In any case, Biden NEEDS Putin removed and a more servile Kremlin in order to face off China, and would have not hesitated in any form of provocation in order to succeed.

Lapin · Mar 27, 2022

gelgoog said:
Sending equipment the Ukrainians can't learn how to use in time is useless. And sending leading edge equipment which the Russians might capture and reverse engineer is also kind of dangerous.

The US keeps bending the rules. I do not think Russia trusts them one iota. I doubt Russia will give the existing Ukrainian government any of the territories they take back. They might call it Ukraine, and it might even have the same flag, but it won't be that government in power. At least not without really close supervision.

It does not matter. Between the SWIFT cut, the sanctions on certain products, and the major shipping companies doing a boycott on Russia, and the EU countries blocking Russian ships in certain harbours in Europe. I think the money is kind of pointless. Paper IOUs you can never cash in. It will only be usable to pay back debts to the West when they already confiscated enough Russian money to cover the debts basically. I think Russia should just cut sales to them unless they start behaving responsibly. Fuck em.

Bloomberg... Remains to be seen. They also said the ruble would hit 200:1. It is currently at 99:1 after temporarily hitting 150:1. Also given the West do not want to sell Russia anything in exchange for the goods the Russians provide, the exchange rate to their currency is kind of pointless anyway, since it cannot buy anything. GDP in USD is a crapshoot as well. With the sanctions the Russian economy does not have a fully convertible currency in real terms in the first place.

The West's attitude will just be whatever suits them. Just like in Yugoslavia when they supported Bosnian Muslims funded by Al-Qaeda against Christians.
The Russians won't allow them to enter Armenia. But Karabakh is more or less fair game. However if Azerbaijan tries to cut the corridor of access from Armenia to Iran to get a direct link to Turkey. I think the Iranians might start raining missiles on them. They already warned them at least once. Iran is not interested in an Azeri cancer on its border when it has Azeris inside its borders as well. Iran is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country. It is more of an empire like Russia than a nation state. The Azeris might just get clobbered by the Iranians like the Kurds get clobbered by the Turks. If you think the West is close to deep shit in terms of energy you will see what will happen if that conflict blows up. The EU is counting on Azeri gas via TAPI to supply them. As is Turkey. Bulgaria announced they will not renew the contract with Russia once it expires this year because they will get Azeri gas. If Azerbaijan gets into a massive war, then Bulgaria will have to run to Russia to sign a gas contract. If Iran enters the conflict, the JCPOA might collapse, and the US and Europe can kiss Iranian oil to cover for Russian oil goodbye. At the same time Iran will continue to send missiles to the Houtis so they can blow up Saudi oil infrastructure.

Ah. But you see the Ukrainian Orthodox church split from the Moscow Orthodox church via a schism. The current Ukrainian regime did this under Poroshenko. The Ukrainians basically created a state church and took churches out from the Moscow Patriarchate. For the Moscow Patriarchate this might as well be a holy war for their believers. So of course they will sponsor it wholeheartedly. The priests will probably even bless the troops on the field as they take cities.

Oh. Nice. A T-72B. Yawn. The Russians have a bazillion of those. They even gave twenty to Laos in exchange for their old T-34s. Yep.
The T-34s were excellently preserved and were later used in military parades and displayed all over Russia.

"The West's attitude will just be whatever suits them. Just like in Yugoslavia when they supported Bosnian Muslims
funded by Al-Qaeda against Christians."

You apparently (at best) underrate the extent of Islamophobia in the West.

"The Bosnian War was characterised by bitter fighting, indiscriminate

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of cities and towns,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,
and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, mainly perpetrated by Serb,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and to a lesser extent, Croat

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and Bosniak

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

forces.
Events such as the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

later became iconic of the conflict."
--Wikipedia
.
While some Western powers quickly supported Croatia against Serbia, the Western powers 'bent over backward' for
a long time to avoid doing anything more than offer some belated condolences to the Bosniak victims of war crimes.
Even after the existence of Serb 'rape camps' (holding Bosniak women and girls) became known, there was no immediate
impetus to offer any military aid directly to the distrusted Bosniaks. Fortunately, the Bosniaks had a few allies.
"Pakistan ignored the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

's ban on supply of arms, and airlifted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to the Bosnian Muslims," --Wikipedia
Eventually--it took a long time--some Western powers decided that the Serb nationalists rather than the Bosniaks were
the greater threat to the Western endgame in the region.

In the former Yugoslavia, the Bosniaks were overwhelmingly secular, far from being likely supporters of Al-Qaeda.
Of course, if your family members have been killed or raped by enemies who hate them for having some Muslim heritage,
those crimes could 'radicalize' you. As far as I know, Al-Qaeda (a popular Western bogeyman), which had been founded
in the late 1980s, was not active in mid-1990s Europe; it focused its attention upon some places in Africa or Asia.

I knew a Serb from Sarajevo, from which he had departed before the war. He lamented the devastation of his former home.
He disapproved of Serb aggression in Bosnia, yet he seemed afraid of openly condemning so many Serb nationalists.
Some Russians today may feel that they are in a similar position.

Ukrainian War Developments

gelgoog

Lieutenant General

Putin’s War to Wipe Out 15 Years of Russian Economic Growth

Helius

Senior Member

semiconprof

New Member

Weaasel

Senior Member

Lapin

Junior Member

Weaasel

Senior Member

enroger

Junior Member

Helius

Senior Member

lapain

New Member

Lapin

Junior Member

Ukrainian War Developments

Lieutenant General

Putin’s War to Wipe Out 15 Years of Russian Economic Growth​

Senior Member

New Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

New Member

Junior Member

Putin’s War to Wipe Out 15 Years of Russian Economic Growth