Ukraine 8

[Heartofice]

I would question whether Russia could come back stronger with a better, more organised army. Much of the things I’ve been hearing suggest the problems are systemic, and the root is probably a centralised level of command, lack of communication and efficiency. Very much the sort of thing you’d expect in a top down dictatorship where reality is hidden from everyone. 
 

How would the next invasion be any better organised if the very system underpinning the current invasion isn’t changed?

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I think the 'cost Russian dearly' thing needs to be talked about too. Again, it really should cost Russia dearly, but at least so far I've not seen signs that Russia is somehow suffering, or at least suffering enough that they would be concerned. 

This is a good point, but hard to pin down either way. I suspect a better indicator can be sussed when they open their market. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

I would question whether Russia could come back stronger with a better, more organised army. Much of the things I’ve been hearing suggest the problems are systemic, and the root is probably a centralised level of command, lack of communication and efficiency. Very much the sort of thing you’d expect in a top down dictatorship where reality is hidden from everyone. 
 

How would the next invasion be any better organised if the very system underpinning the current invasion isn’t changed?

Pretty much. They spent weeks assembling their troops telling everyone it was training (including the troops thenselves).

And the invasion has been very poor.

If they start massing troops on the border again, there will be little doubt they’re getting ready to invade again.

If they try a surprise attack … lol

[Corvinus85]

So the US Senate has voted unanimously in favor of condemning Putin as a war criminal and are recommending that the ICC begin investigations for war crimes against the Russian military. I have no idea if this bears any weight, but we do have 50 GOP senators who are now officially are odds with all the praise Trump and his base have given Putin. 

[Maithanet]

Europe on the whole is rearming because they see that an isolationist like Trump leaving them high and dry is a real possibility.  The US and EU are both going to be giving Ukraine significant military aid at least through 2025.  Ukraine will be in a militarily stronger position in 2025 than they are now, that's virtually guaranteed. 

Even if Trump wins in 2024 and withdraws from NATO (something I think he is unlikely to do after this recent invasion), that's really only a secondary factor in this discussion.  NATO didn't save Ukraine, and even if it didn't exist, Europe still would and would certainly rush to the Ukrainians aid.  So unless Russia is significantly stronger in 2025 than they are now, then that invasion is doomed to fail again. 

Why would Russia be stronger in a couple of years than they are now?  Their economy is collapsing and the economy is the lifeblood of any first rate military.  Just because Putin is willing to ignore and repress Russian society doesn't mean he can suddenly conjure up an effective military machine.  Russia has been undergoing military "reforms" for the past nine years, and this debacle is the result. 

Yes, Russia could make the dubious decision to invade Ukraine again.  Putin's desire to conquer Ukraine remains as strong as ever.  But Russia's ability to make that desire a reality is waning, and even Trump getting reelected isn't going to dramatically change that. 

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I have no idea if this bears any weight, but we do have 50 GOP senators who are now officially are odds with all the praise Trump and his base have given Putin. 

Also worth pointing that Trump doesn't contradict the GOP base, he goes where they want. We see that with things like COVID vaccines. He got boo'd when he talked about them so he stopped talking about them. Previously, the base didn't care about Russia or Ukraine, so he could be pro-Putin either from blackmail, financial interests, or simply because he looks up to autocrats. But now the base is, with a few fringe exceptions, extremely pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia. If that attitude maintains, I think he'll follow it pretty readily.

And, personally, while pro-Ukraine sentiment may die down after a ceasefire, I can easily see anti-Russian sentiment staying in place. After all, a lot of Republican voters are old enough to remember the cold war and when being anti-Russian was simply the default way of life for them. This is like slipping on a comfortable old blanket.

[JGP]

This is a significant list.   

[Gorn]

26 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

As far as I can tell Russia and Putin are kind of fine with the 'lessons' here. The notion that Russia and Putin are suffering in some major way appear to be overblown, at least for now. If they were a democratically-led country this would be a disaster, if they had a major ability to have freer press this would be a disaster, but that ain't what it's about. 

I think the 'cost Russian dearly' thing needs to be talked about too. Again, it really should cost Russia dearly, but at least so far I've not seen signs that Russia is somehow suffering, or at least suffering enough that they would be concerned. 

To continue to be aggressive and invade other countries, they need... you know, weapons, preferably modern ones. Stuff they are losing in huge amounts every day this war drags on. Stuff like guided munitions that they cannot replenish without French electronics. Or even basic stuff like trucks, that Kamaz can no longer produce in quantity due to sanctions.

Sure, on paper they have a bunch of weapons and vehicles in reserves. But considering the condition of their active-duty equipment, I'm willing to bet their reserve tanks haven't been powered on since 1991, and that they are only good for recycling.

[Werthead]

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

To continue to be aggressive and invade other countries, they need... you know, weapons, preferably modern ones. Stuff they are losing in huge amounts every day this war drags on. Stuff like guided munitions that they cannot replenish without French electronics. Or even basic stuff like trucks, that Kamaz can no longer produce in quantity due to sanctions.

Sure, on paper they have a bunch of weapons and vehicles in reserves. But considering the condition of their active-duty equipment, I'm willing to bet their reserve tanks haven't been powered on since 1991, and that they are only good for recycling.

One thing to note is that Neo-Russia is starting to look a lot like North Korea. North Korea's economy is tiny, but by spending a vast percentage of that tiny economy on weapons, they can create a very heavily-armed society. They might start lagging technologically, though, which would be a major problem, but they do have a leg-up on having a large nuclear arsenal already.

[Gorn]

On topic of "Russia's military actually sucks and would lose a 1-on-1 conventional war with Finland or Poland":

 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

One thing to note is that Neo-Russia is starting to look a lot like North Korea. North Korea's economy is tiny, but by spending a vast percentage of that tiny economy on weapons, they can create a very heavily-armed society. They might start lagging technologically, though, which would be a major problem, but they do have a leg-up on having a large nuclear arsenal already.

I don't want to go overboard with criticism of the Russia military.  They were built to fight a defensive war and it showed.  Their troops would no doubt make a better account for themselves if they were fighting on their home turf or against a traditional enemy like the US or Germany. 

A much larger North Korea with thousands of nukes is still really, really dangerous.  But Russia's conventional military (just like North Korea) was just shown to be pretty underwhelming. 

[Gorn]

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

One thing to note is that Neo-Russia is starting to look a lot like North Korea. North Korea's economy is tiny, but by spending a vast percentage of that tiny economy on weapons, they can create a very heavily-armed society. They might start lagging technologically, though, which would be a major problem, but they do have a leg-up on having a large nuclear arsenal already.

Neo-Russia is not a communist country, it's a mafia-state, which is the reason why it is much worse at the whole "world power" thing than USSR was. The main motivating factor for their entire state hierarchy is personal enrichment, and once everyone has a chance to dip into the pot, there's not much left for the actual military needs.

Also, Russia's key issue in this war isn't the weaponry as much as the incompetence of their officer corps. And that was created by design for internal security reasons, with the assumption they wouldn't need to fight any real, actual large-scale wars, and that no-one would call their bluffs.

[Maithanet]

Doesn't feel real optimistic on a peace deal in the next day or two.  That sounds more like "we'll win a battlefield victory and then get peace." 

[Werthead]

Again, I think the Ukrainian position is presenting strength and making maximum use of their successes but they are also aware of several key weaknesses, like the tightening vice around their 40,000-strong forces east of the Dnieper, the ongoing siege of Mariupol and the general loss of Ukrainian life that is happening every single day. I think they are also acutely aware that the Russians could have demanded holding the territory they've taken, so if they can liberate Kherson and the other taken towns without a shot being fired and getting access to the tens of thousands of people there, that's a huge thing.

[Werthead]

Apparently the more recent successes of opening escape corridors to besieged cities has been down to the International Red Cross bridging agreements between Ukraine and Russia, noting there is heavy mistrust on both sides. This is particularly acute in Mariupol, due to its strategic significance.

[JGP]

 

 

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 I think they are also acutely aware that the Russians could have demanded holding the territory they've taken, so if they can liberate Kherson and the other taken towns without a shot being fired and getting access to the tens of thousands of people there, that's a huge thing.

The Russian state can demand whatever it wants. So what 

---

Reports of multiple explosions in Belarus. 

 

[Gorn]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Again, I think the Ukrainian position is presenting strength and making maximum use of their successes but they are also aware of several key weaknesses, like the tightening vice around their 40,000-strong forces east of the Dnieper, the ongoing siege of Mariupol and the general loss of Ukrainian life that is happening every single day. I think they are also acutely aware that the Russians could have demanded holding the territory they've taken, so if they can liberate Kherson and the other taken towns without a shot being fired and getting access to the tens of thousands of people there, that's a huge thing.

As someone whose family went through a similar thing that Ukrainians are going through now, I'm guessing that a major part of their motivation is to make sure they or their children won't go through Part 2 of the same war in 5-10-15 years. Or actually Part 3, since this thing started in 2014.

Croatia could have avoided many thousands of dead by accepting a crappy deal in the beginning of their independence war against a superior opponent. Instead they fought to the end for a chance to be a normal country. They even sacrificed a city comparable (when accounted for relative population) to Mariupol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Reports of multiple explosions in Belarus. 

Maybe. Lots of people are now saying this, but it all seems to stem from the same original tweet. So could be big, or could be nothing.

If it is real, seems kinda odd for a false flag to be so widespread and target so many cities at once (though perhaps that makes it even more likely; an attempt to throw people off the trail). Could be something more mundane, like the "explosions" being supersonic booms from jets. Or, hell, could be something unexpected like a coup attempt.

[Ran]

8 minutes ago, Gorn said:

As someone whose family went through a similar thing that Ukrainians are going through now, I'm guessing that a major part of their motivation is to make sure they or their children won't go through Part 2 of the same war in 5-10-15 years. Or actually Part 3, since this thing started in 2014.

 

Regarding that, here's a video from a pro-Russian account that spins this particular video as suggesting Ukraine was actively seeking a war, but quite obviously the official in question predicted that a war was an inevitable consequence of Ukraine attempting to join NATO. His prediction of how such a war would proceed in regards to what Russia would attempt to achieve is pretty much exactly, word for word, exactly what's played out. And the video is from 2019! 

 

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe. Lots of people are now saying this, but it all seems to stem from the same original tweet. So could be big, or could be nothing.

If it is real, seems kinda odd for a false flag to be so widespread and target so many cities at once (though perhaps that makes it even more likely; an attempt to throw people off the trail). Could be something more mundane, like the "explosions" being supersonic booms from jets. Or, hell, could be something unexpected like a coup attempt.

For sure. That's why I didn't bother linking anything [yet]-- very initial and confused.