Ukraine 18: Pump up the S-300’s… Dance Dance…

[Wade1865]

6 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I'd be worried about Russia bombing the place in a scored earth effort to make Ukraine (and the West) suffer. 

Matrim Fox Cauthon -- I think that's a reasonable worry. The Russians seem to have a history of this, doing it out of necessity, against Napoleon and Adolf. Trade space for time, adapt and regroup, then return with a vengeance.

I can see Vladimir doing this, and it seems like a necessity this time, too. Given the threat of a power plant meltdown -- how desperate is, he considering that western hardware is too much for his military to handle.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

The scorched earth tactic is defensive in nature. It makes sense when your country has a strategical depth and you can withdraw deep into your own territory, forcing an attacker to stretch his lines thin in order to hold that territory and putting a strain on his supply lines.

It makes less sense when you are the attacker. As an invading force you need to hold on to the territory you conquered. Withdrawing from the lands you invaded is exactly what your enemy wants. Scorching the earth may achieve something - revenge, teaching those pesky Ukrainians a lesson, weakening the future Ukraine or whatever - but I can’t see how it would help the Russians win the war here and now. 

[Which Tyler]

Agreed, as a defensive tactic, it's as old as time. As an attacking tactic, then at best it's a fit of pique from a losing attacker.

 

Which makes it plausible.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

The scorched earth tactic is defensive in nature. It makes sense when your country has a strategical depth and you can withdraw deep into your own territory, forcing an attacker to stretch his lines thin in order to hold that territory and putting a strain on his supply lines.

It makes less sense when you are the attacker.

Erik of Hazelfield -- yes, a scorched earth policy seems more often used on the defense. The Russians and Soviets used it successfully, facilitating survival against the French (1812) and German (1915, 1941) invasions. And even though Russia was on the offense during much of the war in Ukraine today, they seem to often be on the defense now. I don't know if Russia would resort to the policy; however, given how desperate Vladimir must be, I wouldn't be surprised. At a minimum it would divert resources against reconstruction and building defensive positions against a regrouped, reinforced, and returned Russian military sometime in the future.

It can be very sensibly used on the offense, though. Sherman's March to the Sea (1864) was an offensive operation, and conducted from a position of strength, not desperation -- the US won the war months later. I wouldn't hesitate to use the policy (as Sherman had, my most favorite US Civil War (Union) general). I think it has the advantage of breaking will, and thus expediting victory, for the military on the offense.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Erik of Hazelfield -- yes, a scorched earth policy seems more often used on the defense. The Russians and Soviets used it successfully, facilitating survival against the French (1812) and German (1915, 1941) invasions. And even though Russia was on the offense during much of the war in Ukraine today, they seem to often be on the defense now. I don't know if Russia would resort to the policy; however, given how desperate Vladimir must be, I wouldn't be surprised. At a minimum it would divert resources against reconstruction and building defensive positions against a regrouped, reinforced, and returned Russian military sometime in the future.

It can be very sensibly used on the offense, though. Sherman's March to the Sea (1864) was an offensive operation, and conducted from a position of strength, not desperation -- the US won the war months later. I wouldn't hesitate to use the policy (as Sherman had, my most favorite US Civil War (Union) general). I think it has the advantage of breaking will, and thus expediting victory, for the military on the offense.

It was used usefully on the offense when the enemy had a large amount of territory through which they could advance in rapid order, which is not the case here.

Russia could destroy Kherson in a fit of pique or they could agree to withdraw as some sort of goodwill gesture to placate international partners.

[Wade1865]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It was used usefully on the offense when the enemy had a large amount of territory through which they could advance in rapid order, which is not the case here.

Russia could destroy Kherson in a fit of pique or they could agree to withdraw as some sort of goodwill gesture to placate international partners.

Werthead -- correct, as Sherman proved.

Russia, on the other hand, utterly failed on the offense, and is increasingly moving toward the defense where the policy is more often used. And I can easily imagine scorched earth is a possibility for the reason you said, as well as to shape future battles.

[Wilbur]

Perun's latest video on the Ukrainian personnel challenges and solutions.

 

[Zorral]

Quote

 

‘The west doesn’t want Russians partying in the streets of Europe’: calls grow for a visa ban

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/13/europe-russians-tourist-visa-ban-ukraine-war

As EU politicians debate a ban from the beaches, Russian exiles fear a return to Soviet-style isolation will be dangerous for them

Thousands of Russians have flocked to Europe on short-term visas since the country invaded Ukraine. Some sought an escape from repression, while summer has brought Russian tourists just looking to escape to the beach. Now some European politicians are calling for an end to the short-term visas that allow Russians to holiday in the EU as the war in Ukraine rages on.

Countries including Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and the Czech Republic have called for the EU to limit or block short-term Schengen visas for Russians, in protest at their country’s invasion of Ukraine.

After six months of war, the proposal echoes widespread frustration with a Russian public that seems either unable or unwilling to mount a meaningful resistance to the war being waged in their name. The situation has been aggravated by high-profile incidents including a Russian woman harassing two Ukrainian refugees in Europe. ....

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

Block all Russian visas with the exception of Refugees.  This is an easy call.  That the Russians are threatening preemptive nuclear strikes over this show just how effective such a ban would be.

[Impmk2]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Block all Russian visas with the exception of Refugees.  This is an easy call.  

All visas? No, a blanket ban like that really isn't simple:

- The west doesn't exactly have the best history of granting refugee visas in a timely fasion to people who are at risk of repression
- You'd put people in the position where they have to choose between their personal safety / wellfare and their family
- There's a large number of Russian ex-pats who may not have lived in Russia for many years (in some cases their entire adult lives) who you'd potentially be making homeless

ETA: I bring this up because I have a gay Russian friend who moved away from Russia in her late teens (over a decade ago). Going out on a limb to say cancelling her visa wouldn't be good for her.

[Werthead]

The Antonovsky Bridge in Kherson is on fire again. It looks like Russia has moved AA assets to the vicinity (which seems very unwise given HIMARS operations in the area, but okay) and they tried to engage incoming fire but were simply overwhelmed and multiple hits were scored on the bridge.

Russia has finally seized control of Pisky, which their forces began assaulting in 2014(!). Well, not really seized control, they more just flattened it with thermobarics. Ukrainian forces have been hitting Donetsk City from positions around Pisky, with some attacks threatening to develop into a counter-offensive. Losing Donetsk City, the capital of the DPR, would have been a major humiliation, so Russia is trying to shore up the gaps in their lines to prevent that.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Block all Russian visas with the exception of Refugees.  This is an easy call.  That the Russians are threatening preemptive nuclear strikes over this show just how effective such a ban would be.

It's a difficult one because you want to help Russians opposed to the war and who may need an escape route from Russia. But anything you do to make things easier for them can be abused by others, so it's a process that needs to be looked at carefully.

And no, Russia is not going to nuke anyone over having visas refused. That's ludicrous. But it might be another thing that causes them to step up reductions in energy supplies, which is where the real political arguments are going to rage over the winter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

All visas? No, a blanket ban like that really isn't simple:

- The west doesn't exactly have the best history of granting refugee visas in a timely fasion to people who are at risk of repression
- You'd put people in the position where they have to choose between their personal safety / wellfare and their family
- There's a large number of Russian ex-pats who may not have lived in Russia for many years (in some cases their entire adult lives) who you'd potentially be making homeless

ETA: I bring this up because I have a gay Russian friend who moved away from Russia in her late teens (over a decade ago). Going out on a limb to say cancelling her visa wouldn't be good for her.

I appreciate that and thank you for that perspective.  What I can’t figure out is why the Russians are turning their rhetoric up to eleven over tourist visas.  Why is that?

@Werthead,

Any ideas? Is it because it would strip any illusion of normality from the existing international situation?

[Makk]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate that and thank you for that perspective.  What I can’t figure out is why the Russians are turning their rhetoric up to eleven over tourist visas.  Why is that?

Any ideas? Is it because it would strip any illusion of normality from the existing international situation?

I haven't seen what rhetoric you are talking about but I would hazard a guess that there are a couple of reasons. Firstly they still simply consider themselves a full participant in the global world order and object to anything that casts aspersions on their prestige or standing. Plus they also likely want to minimise (its already dangerously high) disgruntled citizens, especially those with political clout, as much as possible. If Russian citizens are not allowed to travel from Russia because of the war they are going to start/continue objecting to the war.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, Makk said:

If Russian citizens are not allowed to travel from Russia because of the war they are going to start/continue objecting to the war.

I would sincerely hope so.  

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Block all Russian visas with the exception of Refugees.  This is an easy call.  That the Russians are threatening preemptive nuclear strikes over this show just how effective such a ban would be.

That would not be a good call for many of the Russians who would not qualify as refugees but are still trying to get the heck out of Russia. One of my partner's friends here, for example, is a Russian ex-pat who has no intention of going back to Russia in any permanent manner. He's here in Vienna working as a conductor at one of the opera houses, and I believe he is also hoping to get Austrian citizenship. The idea of canceling his work visa and forcing him back to Russia is pretty chilling. 

[polishgenius]

Yeah I've got a mate (I've spoken about him before) who's technically 'from Russia' but is actually of a minority colonised by Russia who got himself out for now in order to avoid being drafted, but is still in an intermediate country where he can stay visa-free temporarily. But he needs to find a permanent place which will give him a visa since he doesn't qualify as a refugee. 

Shutting off all visa access to all 'Russians' would just put him and others like him in the absolute shit. And give Russia more potential soldiers. 

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah I've got a mate (I've spoken about him before) who's technically 'from Russia' but is actually of a minority colonised by Russia who got himself out for now in order to avoid being drafted, but is still in an intermediate country where he can stay visa-free temporarily. But he needs to find a permanent place which will give him a visa since he doesn't qualify as a refugee. 

Shutting off all visa access to all 'Russians' would just put him and others like him in the absolute shit. And give Russia more potential soldiers. 

I am wary of punishing individuals for the actions of their government, even if they're the Russian equivalent of Dan Snyder. I would rather risk enemy agitators than commit to an action that demonizes a people rather than specific actors. 

The answer to Ukrainian suffering isn't displacement onto Russians as a people. The quarrel is with their government, and precisely because of the fact that the Russians as a people aren't really responsible for the actions of their governing powers. 

So no bans. If a Ukrainian or a Russian wants refuge in America then I think there's been enough profit for the MIC to carve out a housing effort for them. 

[Werthead]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate that and thank youover for that perspective.  What I can’t figure out is why the Russians are turning their rhetoric up to eleven tourist visas.  Why is that?

The only person of even vague consequence doing that is Medvedev, who is no longer a senior member of the Kremlin mainly because he was seen as too soft and weak on the West. He was given a sideways promotion into a dead-end position to erode any power base he'd build up. Ever since then his rhetoric against the West has gone to insane levels, threatening to nuke everyone for every little thing. The general feeling is that it's performative nonsense designed to to re-ingratiate himself with Putin.

[Loge]

On the visa ban, that's tourist visas only. Russians living abroad wouldn't be affected. 

Here is a recent tweet by Kamil Galeev on Russian consumerism:

Sounds like taking away travel to Europe is exactly the thing to do if you want to undermine support for Putin and the war.

[broken one]

Russians as people are high on "world fear us, WE ARE BIG POWER, we take what's ours, fuck yeah!". Most of them supported and support Putin and the war. So this is not "only Putin's war" as some try to depict it. The 'no real responsibility' is also disputable imo, I believe I am responsible for what Polish govt does to some extent - always, as long as I  live in the country, work and pay taxes, althought I have never voted for the now ruling "national romantics", and have never missed any elections since I passed 18. But it is not the point. The more skilled people leave Russia the worse for Russia (and better for us).