Ukraine: “I don’t need a ride, I need Ammunition”.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Padraig said:

It's really hard to imagine that this nuclear move was part of Russia's main plan.

I dunno, I think it was a pretty safe bet Putain was gonna employ nuclear diplomacy one or another once he started this.  Could it be an encouraging indicator that he's already playing that card?  Sure!  But it also could not be.

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's a hope, not as assumption or an expectation

Fair enough 

[rotting sea cow]

1 hour ago, Lord of Oop North said:

On the one hand, that there is a huge military disparity between Russia and Ukraine (which is true)

There was a huge disparity in 1991 between Iraq and the US coalition and the later bombed the first for 42 days before launching the ground operations. Even in 2003 when the Iraqi army was next to non existent, they still took a few days before getting a ride to Baghdad easier than your daily commute, outdistancing the supply lines. Iraqi insurgence was far a bigger problem and the US found itself with unsuitable vehicles and training. Donald Rumsfeld wisely declared that you fight with the army you have not with the army you want. Despite the obvious truth of that statement it drew outrage nevertheless and a program to provide the armed forces with better vehicles was started.

In Serbia if the memory serves me well, the coalition cancelled a massive helicopter operation because of fear to the manpads as they had to cross some mountain range. The Houthis  in Yemen have been routinely kicking the asses of the far superior Saudis, despite the later having material and intelligence support from the US and other countries and the blind eye from most of the West.

The point here is that ground operations have been always hard over enemy territory. It seems that the Russian army had other plans and thus kept its operations restricted. Probably they expected that big portions of the Ukranian army would surrender or turn their cloaks as it happened in Crimea and Donbass. It that it's true we can only now expect the real operations.

 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, The Dragon Demands said:

They can push their salients to Kiev and Kharkiv if they concentrate all remaining Russian forces into the spearhead - they can use Belarusian auxiliaries to shore up their flanks. What’s the worst that could happen?

Putting poorly-trained, badly-equipped auxiliaries on your flanks is the very lesson every single Russian even remotely familiar with Stalingrad should know is a very bad idea.

Although the Belarusians reportedly were not that impressed by the Russians during their shared maneuvers (talk of the Russian soldiers selling fuel and cigarettes rather than focusing on the exercises), and the Belarusians are hardly the most respected fighting force in Europe.

Quote

 

Do we have any information on when the peace talk at the Belarusian border is to take place? 

 

Immediately. Apparently Belarus has provided transportation and reportedly the delegations are already on their way.

Belarus has agreed not to provide troops or launch missile attacks from its territory for the duration of the talks.

[Alarich II]

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

Germany has nuclear carriers? I may be misunderstanding here.

Edit: already explained 

[Werthead]

For negotiations I suspect the Ukrainians will be willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia, probably including a pledge not to join NATO for at least x number of years, and might recognise Crimea as part of Russia.

Russia I suspect wants demilitarisation of the Ukrainian army, including agreements not to buy NATO weapons or equipment, possibly fresh elections and recognition of the secession of Crimea and all of Luhansk and Donetsk.

A possible compromise agreement might be recognising Luhansk and Donetsk along the line of contact, but not all of it, and the secession of Crimea. Ukraine remains free and independent, but there may be room for some kind of limit on Ukrainian military forces east of the Dnieper. However, Ukraine will want guarantees on avoiding death of a thousand cuts, with the risk of more territory being sliced off the country piecemeal.

What could be very useful is if another country intervened. If Finland, for example, agreed to match the neutrality timeline of Ukraine for not joining NATO (Finland I think would overall prefer not to join and maintain neutrality, but only if that doesn't paint a massive bullseye on them), that could sweeten the deal considerably. That might allow Putin to claim a victory beyond his initial requirements. That could appeal to his vanity: he wanted a deal or promise from one neighbour and got one from two instead (maybe even three, if Sweden wanted to join the party).

The key point will if Russia or Ukraine is serious on a compromise. If Ukraine's position is that Russia has to remove all troops from Ukraine altogether (including the rebel oblasts), that will be unrealistic. If Russia basically demands Ukraine's surrender, the surrender of the government, the demilitarisation of the army and Russian forces being allowed into all the cities, that will be equally unrealistic, as would Kharkiv being perhaps ceded to Russia.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

Speaking of Finland's NATO membership: a citizens' initiative demanding a consultative referendum on joining has gathered enough support and so should be considered by parliament, though there may not be enough time to address it before 2023 elections.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Given the poor performance of Russia’s conventional forces, wjat’s the word on its nuclear arsenal?

Is it similarly degraded? Have the troops and operators sold the rocket fuel?

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is anyone saying there is actual hope of the Ukrainians successfully stopping or even pushing back the Russians?  Clearly the Russians aren’t performing as well as expected… but can this translate into a potential strategic victory for the Ukrainians over the Russians?

This morning we received a very long email from a friend in Varsovia (Warsaw) describing everything that he knows -- he's a journalist, so he is tuned in and observant.  The many writing errors in this morning's email show, as nothing else could, how apprehensive he is, which means how shook his immediate circles are too, many of whom, like he, are directly involved from Poland's side with the crisis, from so many angles, including academic conferences in Moscow that were ongoing when the invasion began.

With his permission I am c&p some paragraphs from his email:

Quote

 

. . . Lotta heavy reality to the east, to be sure, which didn't start recently, with all due revulsion about the current assault.

At street level, lotsa blue-yellow flags stuck to windows in building and autos. Signs taped to park benches with the telltale flag pattern and info about donation channels and how to help. Poles really stepped up last time east and south Ukraine was in Russian cross-hairs, in 2014, organizing aid and support from government level to neighborhood level. In 2008 when something strategically similar came down in Georgia, with separationist regions calling for aid, then military incursion to get their way and with bombs on the capital (a "peace-enforcement operation"). The then Polish prez went to rattle sabers near those disputed borders with the then Georgian prez (the former died in jetliner crash in Smolensk fogs two years later; the latter's now still a stateless freewheeler, I think).

Refugee estimates have tripled overnight to around 200,000, mostly to the west border leading here, about a tenth south to Romania. That'll grow geometrically and immediately if the strategy now in operation and on display continues. They're being welcomed here, which is as it should be. (But is also heartening, knowing a few things about crossing that border and the one with Belarus and how crass Polish border policing is in general to the neighbors, crasser still since current government landed in 2015.)

Greatly on tenterhooks as to what comes today, etc. Headlines in English tout effective, valiant military resistance—but the major armored columns're still crossing in the east and are several dozen kilometers above Kyiv, where fighting so far has been with advance units.

Is the delay due to fighting? Deputy defense minister just reported statistics for Russian armored vehicles, planes and choppers destroyed, soldiers killed (150, 50 then 4,500) but that of course can't be verified. Or is it due to a pause ordered by the belligerent's high command to see if proposed negotiations would happen on Fri.? (Imagine being invited to pow-wow over the northern border by your neighbor who's just launched an invasion, and in Gomel, at that, the major southeastern city of the other neighbor (Belarus) from which one of the invasion's major prongs is being staged.)

But meanwhile there was a photo of a monstrous vehicle topped by tube racks for thermo missiles of some kind, seen y'day on a flatbed headed for Ukraine's northern border. Damned if it didn't seem the spitting image of that awful self-propelled ground-to-air launcher that crossed the east border in 2014, downed the Malaysian Airlines passenger flight, then lowered its huge barrels and puttered back over the border. Horrible.

 

This is his conclusion:

"We curb anything optimistical for immediate outlook, for Ukraine, and likely ourselves, but at least there's broadened awareness in the West today, and among its leaderships, compared to, say, 2014 (and so much that preceded that further into the folds and the past)."  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

They can push their salients to Kiev and Kharkiv if they concentrate all remaining Russian forces into the spearhead - they can use Belarusian auxiliaries to shore up their flanks. What’s the worst that could happen?

Salients are dangerous as they expose supply lines to counter attack.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

And this risk of escalating even when no one expected or planned for it was exactly what @Kalibuster was concerned about a month or so ago. Wars take on a life of their own and people feel trapped into actions they don't want to take.

I'd be trying to get China on board with finding a way to shuffle him on out of power before this gets too bad because I highly doubt China is happy with these turns.

Agreed.  Even with Chinese backing has Putin so filled the Kremlin with “yes men” is that really a possibility?

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Turkey has decided this 'conflict' now qualifies as a war, so they will block Russian ships from passing through the Straits to the Black Sea. Another shift in policy that Putin probably didnt think would happen, but from my limited knowledge this is another huge development that will weaken his negotiating position.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Agreed.  Even with Chinese backing has Putin so filled the Kremlin with “yes men” is that really a possibility?

 

Well, Russia needs one big trading block. He just does. The EU and the US (North America essentially) have cut him off. The last one remaining is China. If they were to cut him off, too. The Western sanctions might hurt, but if the Chinese pull the plug and shut him out over an extended period of time, let's just say I'd prefer the economic prospects of a whole lot of African countries over Russia's in that scenario. The Russian's can hope to somewhat bypass SWIFT by doing business with banks in countries that have not sanctioned him (basically China, and their SWIFT alternative CIPS). If China were to join in, well, let's just say, I assume there are limits to what his yes man could stomach, Russia's economy turning into some kinda Cuba, Venezuela or Iran like status, that might be a bit too much.

 

[Kalbear]

Surprised this wasn't posted yet. As one person put it, Ukraine appears to be a country comprised of the world's most rowdy uncles

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is rather fun.  Where not to ask for fuel when your tanks is out of gas.

 

[Mindwalker]

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Russian soldiers discover exactly where you shouldn’t ask for fuel when your tank runs out of gas:

https://twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1497945813330411527?s=21

[A True Kaniggit]

35 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Surprised this wasn't posted yet. As one person put it, Ukraine appears to be a country comprised of the world's most rowdy uncles

 

He should be careful. That cigarette might kill him. 

[dog-days]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is rather fun.  Where not to ask for fuel when your tanks is out of gas.

 

Stupid or possibly smart (if markedly optimistic about the treatment they're likely to receive). How to desert without deserting. They and their families could expect negative consequences if they'd run away or refused to fight. Punishments would I think be lighter for soldiers apparently just guilty of being thick. 

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is rather fun.  Where not to ask for fuel when your tanks is out of gas.

There are many claims that a lot of these Russian soliders have been told they're on joint exercises with Ukrainian forces, and are not aware of the fact that they are being sent to go to war against Ukraine. Certainly, a number of captured Russian soldiers indicate something along these lines: that they are on joint exercises or they don't really know where they're going or why they're there.

There's also been a rumors that some, realizing what they're doing there, deliberately dump their fuel to try and get out of fighting against Ukrainians. Entirely possible these two were among the latter, also short on other supplies, and concocted the idea of asking for fuel so they can get held prisoner and given four square meals and shelter and so on.